Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock. Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Leicester Freemen Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Blackburn Corporation Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Staffordshire Potteries Water Bill (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday, 27th April, at a quarter-past Eight of the Clock.

Jarrow Extension and Improvement Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 27th April, at a quarter-past Eight of the Clock.

Railways (North Western and Midland Group) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday, 10th April, at a quarter-past Eight of the Clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (LORD READING).

Sir J. D. REES: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if there is any truth in the reports of the resignation of Lord Reading.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): No, Sir. It is much to be regretted that currency should be given outside this House to rumours of the type in question, and I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity of denying it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered,
That Government Business, or any proceedings arising from, or incidental to, the Consideration of the Lords Amendments
to the Irish Free State (Agreement) Bill be not interrupted at this day's Sitting at Four, or half-past Four, of the Clock, and may be entered upon at any hour, although opposed, and that Mr. Speaker do not adjourn the House under Standing Order No. 3 until he shall have reported the Royal Assent to the Irish Free State (Agreement) Bill."—[Mr. Churchill.]

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Sir Halford Mackinder to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Unemployment Insurance Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Mr. Gillis, Mr. Thomas Shaw, and Lieut.-Colonel Willey; and had appointed in substitution: Major Barnett, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Lunn.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Unemployment Insurance Bill): Sir John Baird, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Mr. John Davison, Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle, Sir James Greig, Major Hennessy, Major Hills, Mr. Leonard Lyle, Dr. Macnamara, Mr. Munro, Mr. Rose, Mr. Alfred Short, Mr. Leslie Scott, Sir Robert Thomas, and Colonel Penry Williams.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to dissolve the marriage of Violet Emily Crofts, of Aclare Rectory, Aclare, in the county of Sligo, in Ireland, with Christopher Nason Crofts, her present husband, and to enable her to marry again; and for other purposes." [Croft's Divorce Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to dissolve the marriage of Robert Morton, junior, with Alice Mary Georgina Morton, his now wife, and to enable him to marry
again; and for other purposes." [Morton's Divorce Bill [Lords.]

Croft's Divorce Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; to be read a Second time.

Morton's Divorce Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; to be read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — IRISH FREE STATE (AGREEMENT) BILL

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the Lords Amendments be now considered."

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): I think perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with the permission of the House, that I should on the first Amendment—

Mr. SPEAKER: —On the Motion "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."

Mr. CHURCHILL: —on the Motion "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," make a very brief general statement to the House indicating the effect produced upon the Amendments by the Agreement reached yesterday between the Northern and Southern Governments of Ireland, and the course which His Majesty's Government propose to take in regard to them. The House will have had an opportunity of studying at leisure the text and the terms of the Agreement which has been made, and I should like myself, at the very outset, to pay a tribute, which I had no opportunity of doing last night, to the statesmanlike courage and earnest goodwill which have been displayed at this most critical juncture in the fortunes of Ireland by Sir James Craig and his colleagues in the Ulster Cabinet. Ulster at this moment has lent a helping hand to the Irish Free State and to the cause of peace in Ireland, the value of which cannot possibly be over-estimated, in the first place by taking all measures which are humanly possible to bring about a cessation of the religious and partizan warfare in Belfast itself and of the acts of repeated injury and counter-injury which have been done by Catholics and Pro testants one against the other. By removing, or by taking every method practicable to remove that cause of irritation, Ulster gives to the Treaty Party and to the Provisional Government in the South of Ireland a far greater chance of
success than would ever otherwise have been possible. There is no doubt whatever that the conflict which has been raging in the slums of Belfast, in the under-world of that city, has armed the foes of the Free State with every sort of argument to rally to their side forces which otherwise would have had nothing to do with their wrecking and destructive campaign.
In so far as the measures now taken may have the effect of producing a peace ful and a tranquil situation in Belfast, the cause of those who are fighting for the Treaty will be enormously strengthened. But in addition to that, there is a hope in this Agreement of a co-operation between North and South, a co-operation only forthcoming on the basis of the Treaty, a co-operation obviously, finally, and fatally destroyed were a Republic to be set up. This hope of unity and co-operation undoubtedly opens out to Irishmen in all parts of Ireland a prospect for the peaceful, progressive future of their country which has never before been laid before them. In those two ways Ulster and the Ulster Government have rendered a supreme service not only to Ireland, but to the whole British Empire, and I take this opportunity of saying that all the more in consequence of this action must our obligations and pledges to Ulster to secure Ulster her rights, to defend her soil if necessary, to secure her all that she is entitled to under the legislation of this House and under the Treaty which has been agreed upon—our pledges and our obligations are, in my opinion, redoubled by what has taken place. After such a gesture and action at a moment of such difficulty has been taken, it is a binding obligation upon us to see that Ulster does not suffer by the effort she has made in the common interest. In addition, I venture to think that the position of Ulster will have been strengthened before the whole world by the plain proof of her earnest desire to bring about a condition of peace and goodwill throughout Ireland. I felt bound to express these sentiments to the House at this moment.
I come to the general method with which the Government propose to deal with the various Amendments. We cannot consent to any alteration of the Treaty, however small. We cannot consent even to make an alteration of the
Treaty of the smallest kind, when it can be demonstrably shown that it would be convenient to do so. Even if it be proved that some of these provisos are convenient in themselves, we cannot accept them where they impinge in the smallest degree upon the Treaty, and for this reason. A great struggle is proceeding throughout Southern Ireland between those who adhere to the Treaty and those who seek to overturn it and to levy war against the British Empire, and any alteration which we make for the purpose of convenience would be used by the enemies of the Provisional Government, by the enemies of Ulster and of the British Empire, as a means of misleading public opinion, as a means of confusing the issue, and as a means of forcing the Provisional Government to embark upon long explanations as to the character and degree of the alterations. I cannot think of anything more dangerous than that. Do not mar the symmetry and solidarity of the position that has been taken up. The House knows well how easy it is for people of bad will to make the kind of statement that, "It is not the same Treaty; the Treaty has been altered," and how very laborious and slow-footed is the argument which falls to those who have to prove that the alteration is only temporary and immaterial.
The whole strength of those fighting for the Treaty would be most seriously compromised if any part of the Treaty were altered, however small, even for a good purpose, and my submission to this House and to the House of Lords on this subject is that, even if you feel that the Treaty is in some respects defective, those defects are not comparable in importance to the danger of beginning to mar the symmetry of the position of those who are fighting for the Treaty. It is no unreasonable spirit to this House or to the House of Lords that leads me to adhere to this attitude at this juncture, and I am sure I shall have the House with me in the reasons which I have given. So far from wishing in any way to take up an obdurate attitude towards the House of Lords, or the Amendments which have reached us from that place, I should like to say that the debates there have been, in my opinion, of the most creditable character. It is an Assembly in which there is, undoubtedly, a large majority who have the very strongest feeling of anxiety about the policy embodied in this Bill, and yet they
have most carefully refrained from taking any attitude which seemed to threaten to wreck the Treaty, or to destroy the pact. Lord Lansdowne, speaking with the great responsibility which always attaches to anything he says, made it perfectly clear that, whatever the opinions of the House of Lords, or however weighty the arguments behind their opinions, they would not persist in any attitude which would mean the wrecking of this Bill, or the impairment of the Treaty settlement upon which this Bill is based.
I could not, therefore, assent to the proviso which deals with the arrangement for the Council of Ireland. I admt that, in its present form, there appears to be a certain inconvenience resulting therefrom, but the inconvenience will not be great, and will not be long; and it is perfectly clear that that inconvenience can be removed by a continuance of co-operation between the two Governments. They can make any arrangement which they like for dealing with the diseases of animals and with railways in the interim period before the final legislation dealing with the Irish constitution and with the consequential effects of that Constitution has been passed through this House. They can quite easily make arrangements between themselves, and they have, I gather, reached the conclusion that conversations and consultation between individual Ministers responsible for different subjects, and between the two Governments when necessary and convenient, will be the best method of adjusting these matters of common interest in the interval.
The second proviso about the High Court stands in the same position. It involves a technical alteration of the Treaty to accept it as it stands. It is agreed by all parties concerned—by the Northern Government and by the Government of Southern Ireland—that it is premature to deal with this at the present moment. The proper time for dealing with this subject will be at some period before the Constitution Bill and the final ratification of the Treaty is brought before this House, and, in the meantime, I am assured no inconvenience will result.
The proviso about the payment of pensions, etc., does not stand on the same footing. It is not an infraction of the Treaty, but I shall on that ask the House to consider, when the time comes, the undesirability of our relieving the Free
State Government, if and when it is ultimately constituted, from Treaty obligations which they have definitely assumed, and which they have shown no disposition to evade. I shall also renew the pledge, which has been repeatedly given, that the Imperial Government accepts full ultimate responsibility in regard to these payments of all kinds, in the event of default in other quarters, which default I do not anticipate.
Lastly, I shall have to submit—and here I use my strongest argument last—that the Amendment constitutes a breach of the privilege of this House. I shall have to submit that to you, Sir, as it seeks to impose a financial charge upon this country. Then there is a proviso about laying the Orders in Council on the Table. The principal Order transferring powers has been for some days ready, and will be made public as soon as it has received the assent of the Council to-day or to-morrow. That is the principal and most important Order, and I must point out, as I pointed out when we were discussing this Bill in Committee, that once the powers have been transferred, it is very doubtful whether, if the House subsequently chose to take exception to the Order, and move an Address praying that His Majesty might annul the Order, the powers could be, in fact, recovered. Powers which are transferred are necessarily transferred, and I cannot hold out to the House any great assurance that in practice and in effect they will have a power of recalling action which must necessarily be taken at each moment when action is required. At the same time, the fact that these Orders will lie on the Table, and that the subject can be raised and discussed in a formal constitutional manner in either House, will have the effect of placing the House in continual and intimate contact on this subject with the Government, and of conferring the means for closer concerted action between the Executive and both branches of the Legislature in regard to all these matters. Therefore, since it was desired, and since it was accepted in the House of Lords, on this occasion I shall propose that we agree with the Lords in regard to that proviso.
Then there comes the question of serious principle involved in what is called "the Ulster month"—when shall the Ulster month date from; shall it date
from the passing of this Act, or from the passing of the final Act? From the beginning this controversy has proceeded entirely on the basis that we were bound to clear up the ambiguity, or, at any rate, the doubts which admittedly existed as to what the legal effect of our legislation was. Otherwise it would have been said that Ulster, if she did not contract out after the present Act, might find she had lost her chance for ever. We put an Amendment on the Paper which we were led to believe in all respects cleared up that ambiguity, and made no doubt whatever that the Ulster month ran from the final Act, and not from this Act. I shall be prepared to move that Amendment in a different form to-day, in the form which has been agreed upon by all the parties concerned, a form which gives an overwhelming assurance to Ulster that her option will in no respect be compromised if it is not exercised until after the second Act has been passed—an overwhelming assurance which cannot possibly be doubted in view of the legal authorities to whom we have had recourse—and we have had recourse to the highest legal authorities at the disposal of the Government. The question of whether, as a matter of policy, we should endeavour to make the month run from this Bill or from the other has been settled by the Agreement yesterday. Article 7 of that Agreement clearly contemplates that it was intended to prescribe that the Ulster month was to date, not from this Bill, but from the subsequent Bill. Anyone who likes to read Article 7 will see this:
During the month immediately following the passing into law of the Bill confirming the constitution of the Free State (being the month within which the Northern Parliament is to exercise its option) and before any address in accordance with Article 12 of the Treaty is presented, there shall be a further meeting between the signatories to this Agreement. …
That makes it perfectly clear. We have agreed upon a form of words which removes all ambiguity, and settles matters on the basis that the Ulster month runs after the second Bill. I shall move, instead of the words which the Government moved in the House of Lords, that the following words be inserted:
This Act shall not be deemed to be the Act of Parliament for the ratification of the said Articles of Agreement, as from the passing whereof the month mentioned in Article 11 of the said Articles is to run.
That, I am advised, makes the matter absolutely beyond the slightest suspicion of doubt, and also decides it in a form agreed upon by all the parties concerned. So much for the treatment of the various Amendments.
I have only a word or two more to say in inviting the House to consider the Lords Amendments. We must not, I fear, allow ourselves at this juncture to rejoice as if our task had reached completion. We must not even allow ourselves to rejoice in the confidence that our policy will succeed. A long and a wearing period of anxiety and uncertainty lies before us. The whole of our Irish journey will be a pilgrimage of discouragement until perhaps at the end we may find we have arrived safely. I am certainly loath to encourage undue optimism at the present moment. I have complete confidence in the good faith and goodwill of the Irish signatories to the Treaty. I am sure that they will stand by their undertaking. Those men will, to the best of their ability, labour faithfully to discharge what they have undertaken to do. I have less confidence in their power to discharge fully what they undoubtedly desire to do. I am speaking absolutely frankly to the House, and I feel that it is very much better in this matter to face the facts quite brutally, and not to nourish illusions, which if they should turn out a disappointment, might have the effect of weakening our strength, our resolution, and our patience to deal with the new situation that would arise.
The infant Irish Free State, while still in its cradle, is exposed to deadly foes, foes who would not hesitate to use any means however cuel, however treacherous, however mad, to destroy it, or to prevent it ever coming into full life. We have seen only in the last few days attempts, in some cases successful, to seduce from their loyalty to the Provisional Government the uniformed troops of that Government. We have seen attempts, in one case successful, to stifle the freedom of the Press, to destroy a great Irish newspaper which had been defending the Treaty cause. We have seen and, no doubt we shall see, a continuous effort on the part of those who wish to destroy the Treaty, a continued effort on their part to prevent any free expression of opinion by the majority of the Irish nation upon this great question.
We have even greater dangers than that to anticipate. These Agreements, which have been entered into between the British Government and the Irish signatories, or between the Northern and the Southern Governments of Ireland, will, I am confident, be carried out with the utmost good faith by all concerned. But there will be forces in Ireland anxious to wreck these arrangements by violent action, by treacherous action, and, if possible, to throw suspicion upon the good faith of those with whom we have entered into a covenant. We must be prepared in our minds for that. We must be prepared for attempts to mar all this fair prospect. We must carefully, even patiently, discriminate in these matters between the good faith of our friends and the pitiless animosity of our foes. It is at this juncture that the powerful aid of Ulster in the cause of Irish peace is timely and doubly precious. That is all I wish to say to-day. I may, in the course of the next few days, have to use plainer words about some aspects of what is occurring in some parts of Ireland, but I do not desire to do so to-day; and I only wish to correct by what I say any undue elation over what has been achieved, great and memorable as this achievement undoubtedly is. All I say is that our national position will be unshakeable, our Imperial position will be unshakeable before all the world as long as we adhere strictly and faithfully to the Treaty, and as long as we stand by our obligations to Ulster, which are secured to her under the Treaty and under this legislation.

Captain CRAIG: Unfortunately I was not in the House when the very important statement was made last night by the Colonial Secretary on the subject of the Agreement made between representatives of Southern Ireland and Ulster. I am sorry that I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we have been able to study "at leisure" the terms of this document since then, because it is only a couple of hours ago that I became aware that this Agreement had been reached. Therefore it would be very injudicious for me or other hon. Members to say very much about it. I will say, however, that I heartily agree at least with that part of the Agreement which says in Clause 2, that from to-day the two Governments undertake to co-operate
in every way in their power with a view to the restoration of peaceful conditions in the disturbed areas. That to me is the crux of the whole Agreement. As far as the Government of Ulster and my colleagues from Ulster in this House are concerned, everything that can possibly be done will be done to carry that provision into force.
The speech of the Colonial Secretary might be divided into two parts. In the first place, he drew a picture of a peaceful and united Ulster, and he rather led us to believe that this agreement would settle all the difficulties of Ireland. That was in the earlier part of his speech, but in the latter part I am glad to say that he struck a much truer note, when he said that it would be folly on our part if we were to assume that from now onward all would be well in Ireland. We Ulster people have often been accused of being a suspicious people. I admit that we are suspicious, but we have good reason to be so, and it is because we are suspicious by nature that I find myself quite unable to join in the picture of peace and contentment which the right hon. Gentleman has put before us. I hope it will be so as heartily as any man in this House, and we shall do all in our power to carry out this Agreement.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reference to pledges securing to Ulster all that she is entitled to under past legislation. I thank him for that, but again I cannot help reminding him that pledges almost as precise and as sincere as he has now given have been given to us on many occasions, and yet we cannot forget that in the very Treaty with which this Debate deals our interests, to put it in as mild language as I can, were very seriously impaired. If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the Debate at the time of the passing of the Act dealing with Ulster, he will find numerous occasions on which the Government promised that the interests of Ulster would be safeguarded at all times. The House knows that, through inadvertence or some other cause, our interests have not been safeguarded, but they have been very gravely jeopardised. Were it not for the boundary question a great deal of the opposition raised in this
House to the ratification of that Measure would never have arisen.
I want to make it clear why we cannot join the general chorus of approbation which the signing of this latest Agreement has aroused in the country. The right hon. Gentleman says he feels sure that the signing of this Agreement will create a feeling of relief and joy not only in this country, but all over the world. Almost exactly the same words were used when the Treaty was signed. I have to remember however that the representatives of Ulster are signatories to this document, and that was not the case with the Treaty. We have not had full time to study or realise the effect which this Agreement will have on the position in Ireland. I want, however, to warn the House and the people outside that it is premature to be too jubilant over this Agreement. These words of mine, I do not think, will do any harm, and although we consider ourselves to have been badly treated in the matter of the Treaty, we are as anxious as the Government, that the dreadful and horrible state of affairs which exists not only in Belfast, but all over Ireland, shall cease as soon as possible. As far as Belfast is concerned, we are thoroughly ashamed of the state of affairs that exists there. We hate it, and will do anything to bring that orgy of crime which has disgraced our city so long to an end as soon as possible. I am not going into the question of who is responsible. Three parties may be accused of the present state of affairs in Ireland, and they are the Government of the country, the Sinn Fein party, and the Ulster Loyalists. I am not for one moment going to apportion the blame amongst those three, but whoever is responsible, we are all anxious to bring that state of affairs to an end at the earliest possible moment, and will do everything in our power to help the authorities in so doing.
With regard to the proposals before the House, I realise at this stage that it is not reasonable for us to ask the Government to accept any Amendment which would actually alter the terms of the Treaty. With regard to the Ulster month, I think it would be better if that month had dated from the passage of this Bill, but as it was agreed between the representatives of both parties that it should date from the passing of the
Bill confirming the Constitution I will not take any exception to that. I thank the Government for accepting the Amendment with reference to the laying on the Table of Orders in Council transferring powers, etc. With regard to the two other Amendments, of course a great deal of our opposition to the proposals of the Government has been removed by the result of yesterday's Conference, but I would like the Government to explain to us—I really think it is a matter which we ought to know—whether, when they were negotiating the Treaty, these important matters, such as the Council and the Court of Appeal in Dublin, were ever considered by them at all, because, if not, it seems to me that it was a gross dereliction of duty on the part of the Government to leave such very important matters undealt with. They are matters which under any circumstances if likely to arise must cause a great deal of trouble, and, if we can avoid that trouble, it is something gained. I cannot understand why the Government or their advisers, or whoever drafted the Treaty, should not have dealt with matters so closely affecting the life of the two parts of Ireland, particularly the question of the Council. These I admit are small matters in comparison with the Treaty as a whole, and they are reduced in importance, I also admit, by the result of yesterday's Conference. In view of yesterday's Conference, I feel sure that the passage or rejection of these Amendments will not consume very much time.

Lord HUGH CECIL: I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that it would not be wise to contest with the Government at this stage what they think it right to do about the Amendments before the House. My right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary dealt with the matter in a very conciliatory spirit, and showed that he was not indisposed to go as far as he could to meet the wishes of the other House of Parliament. He told us again of the intangibility of the Treaty, and in that he has maintained a perfectly consistent attitude. I want to say once more that that intangibility is a kind of inherent weakness. The Government has really presented Ireland with a statue of Peace made in snow. When the snow of reality shines upon it, it tends to melt away. I am afraid that the very fact that we have to treat the Treaty with such profound respect that we are not allowed
to make even improvements in it shows that there is no driving power behind it in Ireland, and, if there be no driving power behind it in Ireland, how is it possibly going to solve the Irish Question?
Let mo say, before I part from the Amendments, that I earnestly hope that the Government will carry out what my right hon. Friend himself told us they would do to the full, and will give equitable and even generous consideration to officials in the employ of the Irish Government, or, may I say, to professors and others in the Southern Universities, if in the end it should be found that they are hardly treated by their new rulers. Nothing could be more to the dishonour of our Government here than if they abandoned the interests of the loyal officials who have served the State, whether in education or in any other capacity, and I trust, when we reach that Amendment, that my right hon. Friend will see his way to give us some assurance. I will not argue the question of privilege now, but I should have thought that it was quite clear that the Amendment does not lay any fresh charge on the people, because it only continues the charge that already exists.
The Government are great believers in conferences, and it is part of the weakness of their way of dealing with the Irish Question. Conferences, no doubt, are sometimes a very useful engine of conciliation, but they are only so when you can have present leaders who are absolutely masters of their followers, so that whatever they agree their followers outside will accept. Again, generally they are only useful when the points in dispute do not cut very deep into human passion, and when, prehaps, the matter is really an obsolete controversy, a little temper arising out of the controversy keeping the dispute going, but with all reality passed away from it. In such circumstances, conferences are very useful, but a conference on the Irish Question has always seemed to me a foolish plan, and the Conference out of which the Treaty has revolved has abundantly justified that view. If you can get comparatively reasonable people into a room, and can persuade them by all the engines of personal influence to agree to a particular form of words more or less doubtful and ambiguous, and if then that form of words has to be dealt with by people outside by no means so reasonable, the whole
thing breaks down. That always happens in a conference, and I believe it is a profoundly unwise way of negotiating where you have real convictions deeply held, and apparently undisciplined parties to deal with.
I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the gloomy prospect before Ireland at present. The truth is that self-government is not possible to a community unless the mutual sympathy that binds the members of the community together outweighs the mutual antipathy that divides them. Obviously, if there be not a larger measure of mutual sympathy than mutual antipathy, self-government is a mere metaphorical expression, because you cannot have self-government if one part of the community hates the other part as the Protestants and Catholics in Belfast hate one another. You cannot have self-government anywhere unless there be on the whole a general mutual sympathy between the members of the community which outweighs any smaller mutual antipathy; and, if it turn out that that is the case in Ireland, it is not merely the Government scheme—the Treaty—which will break down, but every plan for separate and distinct self-government or autonomy in Ireland.
If it be true—and no one will deny that there are signs which seem to suggest it—that the mutual antipathy that divides Irishmen is stronger than the mutual sympathy that binds them together, then you must give up the whole plan—not only this Measure, but any scheme of Home Rule—and find some other way of governing Ireland which does not depend upon agreement or co-operation in Ireland. I am afraid that the prospect is a dark one. The Government have neglected the laws of the universe, and the Irish have neglected the laws of the universe. There was a time when my right hon. Friend (Mr. Churchill) was a student of aviation, and—this is not without allegorical significance—he had at that period one dangerous accident. That was because he despised the law of gravity. The laws that govern political actions are quite as imperative as the law of gravity. If, as the Irish have done, you commit murder on a wide scale, you suffer for it in the end, and if you surrender to murder, as the Government have done
you suffer for that in the end. You do not escape. The law of the universe will have its way.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: I do not think that the House would like to part from this Bill without paying a tribute to the tact and skill which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies has displayed in piloting the Bill through the House. A great number of us have totally disagreed with this Bill. We have disagreed with the attitude which he has taken up, and with the speeches which he has made, but we have been impressed by his arguments and his tact, and I think a public expression of appreciation is not inappropriate. He has also, at any rate, succeeded in bringing together the Governments of the North and of the South. It is really a great step in advance in Ireland, as far as regards the position in which we find ourselves to-day. It is true that the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was far more attuned to the realities of the situation than the first part. There are prospects ahead which may wreck the ship of Peace, but we have, at any rate, reached this stage that we have now in the South of Ireland, outside the six counties, one party which is definitely and, I think, honestly desirous of having peace with their Northern neighbours, and maintaining the Imperial connection. It is willing generally to let bygones be bygones, and to look forward to a better and happier future. That is certainly an asset to which we must not close our eyes.
All the information I get tends to confirm the view that at the present moment Mr. Arthur Griffith and Mr. Michael Collins do not command a majority of the efficient electors in the South of Ireland. If the elections were held under proper conditions, no doubt they would get a majority, but I use the word "efficient" because it is pretty certain that the other side will take care to prevent those opposed to them voting. Cork, Limerick and Galway are held by the extremists. Dublin is doubtful. Many tracts of the county are thoroughly Republican. Leitrim is Republican. Sligo is doubtful, and all we can do is to give assistance by all means in our power, material and otherwise, to the new Government, and to do nothing in this country, by speeches, or in any other way, to make their position more difficult.
In passing I will say I was rather suspicious of this Conference in Downing Street between the Northern and Southern Governments, from the British taxpayers' point of view, because when the two parties in Ireland do come together, it is usually the British taxpayer who suffers. I see we have now to provide half-a-million sterling to cement the Treaty between these two Governments. Personally I am perfectly willing, if that will bring peace to Ireland, to bear my share of the burden.

Mr. DEVLIN: The hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Lieut.-Colonel Ashley) has addressed himself to this question in a rather patronising spirit.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: I did not mean to do so.

Mr. DEVLIN: He told us that the substantial sum of £500,000 is to be paid by the British taxpayer for the purpose of satiating the abnormal appetite of the Irish people for British money. May I point out to him—I think he is an Irishman—that Ireland paid last year to the Imperial Exchequer very many millions more than she was entitled to pay. I think the entire revenue of Ireland last year was £45,000,000 and the expenditure only £25,000,000, and therefore I do not think it was worthy of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to make that point with regard to this £500,000. I quite agree that this Treaty does not come up to the standard methods of perfection, but I think perhaps the position of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), who has just spoken, is perhaps the most indefensible position of any one in this House. He told us that when you get a party which can speak absolutely for the nation, then it is possible to deal with it. I do not think there is any man in this House who has so deliberately, for the last 25 years, prevented the solution of this question at a time when it was more easy of solution than it is now. There was a time when 86 Members came to this House from Ireland. They spoke with an authority and prestige unequalled by that of the representatives of any people in the world. They had behind them not only their own people in a disciplined unity unparalleled, but they had also the moral sympathy of the whole world, and from Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and the United States of America—from the Parliaments and Legislatures
of those places—came appeals to this country to grant Home Rule as it was first introduced by Mr. Gladstone. I do not know that at any time during these controversies the Noble Lord ever submitted to the wisdom of this House the desirability of conceding that claim which was so irresistible, and which was backed up by an authority that was unquestioned.
12 N.
If the Government are in difficulties to-day, we must really not forget that the main responsibility—I will not say all the responsibility but the main responsibility—lies on the shoulders of those who have prevented any settlement in the last quarter of a century. There is no doubt about it, and one profoundly believes that not only for the salvation of Ireland, but for the salvation of society, constitutionalism is the one great method by which society can be saved everywhere. If the principle of constitutionalism had been admitted by those who have been in the past described—I hope I shall not be taken as using the word offensively—as the "Die-Hards" of the last quarter of a century, we should not now be up against the tremendous difficulties which face us to-day in the solution of this problem, because it cannot be forgotten that, if there be unrest throughout the British Empire to-day, if there be a spirit of discontent abroad, if there be threatened a universal uprising of the people, it is due to the refusal of men in high positions of responsibility to recognise the constitutional and authoritative demand of the people for reasonable and defensible concessions. There is no question about it that if Parliament had not been overridden by extremist forces—and that was justified by no one in language so magnificent as that of the Noble Lord—then counter-rebellion can justify itself, and so we go round and round the vicious circle; and I and one or two of my colleagues are really the only people who can come here to this House with clean hands, and speak on this matter.
If you had settled this Irish question in 1886, in 1893 or in 1914—and at any one of those times, it could have been readily settled—you would not have been faced now with the great difficulties which have called forth the gloomy speech of the right hon. Gentleman. Look what Ireland would have been to you during the last quarter of a century, what an asset she would have been in your difficulties and
dangers even in 1916. Indeed, then she rallied to your support with a wonderful spirit of friendship and goodwill. It seems to be forgotten in this House—and I want to say this for the last time—what a magnificent part Southern Ireland played on your behalf in the Great War, providing you with some of the bravest and most gallant of your fighters; in fact, Ireland's contribution during the War was magnificent, although Ireland had been so badly treated. Had you treated her properly, had you settled the Irish question 30 years ago as you could have done, you would have had Ireland among the most enduring links in the Imperial chain, you would have had behind you in Ireland a most powerful and moral force. You refused to concede that, and you are now face to face with these difficulties.
It is no use the Noble Lord saying that the best way to settle it is to do nothing at all. That is why he is always in opposition. That is a character sketch of himself. The Noble Lord, with all his splendid gifts—and no one has listened with more pride than I have to his magnificent oratorical addresses in this House—suffers from one thing, and he suffers from it through his own fault, and not like me. I suffer from detachment because nobody will have anything to do with me. The Noble Lord suffers from detachment because he will not have anything to do with anyone else. I am egotistical enough to believe that if I had the chance I would do splendid things. The Noble Lord is so modest that he could do splendid things and will not do them. Therefore, I say that really the Noble Lord ought to remember that these things must be settled some time and somehow. The longer they are delayed, the longer they drag out, the worse for all the interests involved.
I have nothing to do with this Treaty. I know nothing about these negotiations. I am judging these things purely as an interested observer, and as one who is anxious for the welfare of Ireland and for peace and good will among all sections of her people. That is all. But the thing must be settled, and that is an attempt to settle it. It may not succeed, but my own belief is that it will succeed. We may have to pass through turmoil, through the welter of blood and tears which are the incidentals of our whole historic record of fighting for free-
dom. No doubt this may be the horrid experience which we who live in Ireland will have to bear, but a brave effort, a generous attempt to do a noble deed, will have its own reward. And when the blood disappears, the tears are dried up, and the people settle down to consider how profoundly essential it is that this long and weary battle which has been waged between these two nations should end, and that Ireland should settle herself to the task of fashioning her own destinies, and building up the structure of her own national life, then, I say, with a prescience and political acumen of which Ireland is not devoid, that I believe the question will be settled, and that at all events the foundations have been laid.
I have one word to say in conclusion as to the Amendment which has been accepted by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies with regard to the laying of Orders on the Table. I really do not know what effective purpose this can serve, and I have come to that conclusion because of an experience of my own. An Order in Council was laid on the Table transferring the National Health Service to the Ulster Parliament, and I, taking advantage—one of the few advantages I have—of the conventions of the House, came here at 11 o'clock one night to oppose that Order in Council. I made a most eloquent speech, profoundly impressive, to about 22 people. If I were to measure my oratory by the strength of my audience, I would have as modest an opinion of myself as the Noble Lord. What happened on that occasion? My hon. Friend below me stood outside the door, and invited everyone who was coming in to stay out, and invited everyone who was in to come out. I saw him pursuing his task with a physical agility that commanded my admiration. He never got such exercise in his life. He came into the House and went out of it. He roamed round its boundaries. I was about to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that when next I addressed myself to an Order in Council, you ought to appoint a Boundary Commission. My hon. Friend succeeded, and he turned up, after having me counted out, in excellent physical form the next day. If, taking advantage of the forms of the House, a Member, when an Order in Council is laid, can only discuss it after 11 o'clock at night, and any
Member can come in, count him out and prevent him from speaking, what is the good of it? Anyone coming here to object to these Orders in Council would find that he would have a very small attendance of Members, or that there might be someone, perhaps, less proficient in the new art than my hon. Friend, and perhaps physically even less agile than he proved himself to be on that occasion, but still no consideration whatever will be given to what he says. Therefore, I cannot see the value of the acceptance of this Amendment at all. That is all I have to say; that is my contribution to the Debate.

Captain Viscount CURZON: I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Falls (Mr. Devlin), and should like to pay my humble tribute to the right hon. Gentle man the Colonial Secretary. Like my hon. and gallant Friend who spoke from the other side of the House (Lieut.-Colonel Ashley), I have admired the way in which he has piloted the Bill through the House, although I do not in the least agree with it. With regard to the Agreement reached last night, it all seems to hang upon Article 6. It is obvious from the state of Ireland to-day that there are two parties in Southern Ireland—that of Mr. Arthur Griffith and that of Mr. De Valera. I should like to ask, is it possible for Mr. de Valera to upset this Agreement by getting the disloyal element in the Irish Republican Army to recommence their active campaign against Belfast? Another question is that of the boycott. Only the day before yesterday three trains were stopped, their contents were emptied out on the ground, one carriage was derailed, and the Belfast property was looted, stolen or burnt. There is nothing that I can find in this Agreement to provide against that, but no doubt the subject was alluded to at the Conference, and I hope that we shall get some assurance in the course of the Debate that the boycott also will be called off. I was a little sorry to hear the hon. Member for Falls try to remind us about our responsibility in the matter. I thought the whole of this Agreement and the whole of the Treaty was conceived in the spirit of forgiving and forgetting. I only hope such a spirit will really continue to the end. I have disagreed with
the Treaty, and have voted against it whenever I could. At the same time, whatever party is in power will have to see it through, and therefore we shall have to do what we can to ensure that it goes through.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Agreement reached last night is not really open to discussion in any detail to-day, but only in so far as it may relate to the Lords Amendments.

Sir F. BANBURY: I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin), but I am afraid I could not agree with his statement that if forty years ago certain events had not happened, there would have been peace in Ireland. My belief is that if forty years ago the policy of the then Conservative party had been carried out, there would have been no Irish question now. Had we in 1886 given way to the Irish, the only result would have been that, having got what they asked for, they would have proceeded to ask for something more. I am sorry I was not in the House last night when the statement was made by the Colonial Secretary, but I read it in the papers this morning. It begins, "Peace is declared." I thought that was done last December. I was not aware that war had been declared since. I do not know what peace is declared, or by whom, because statements have been made by the Chief Secretary and other members of the Government that all the world was aghast with wonder at the peace we had secured in December, 1921. I have never seen any statement that war had been declared between those two dates. If war has been declared between those two dates, it only shows how absurd was the statement made in December last that peace had been declared. It was said we must forgive and forget. We are saying the same to-day. What is going to happen in another two or three months? I also remember that an agreement was made between Sir James Craig and Mr. Collins in January, and the boycott was declared off. The boycott has remained on and is on at the present moment. The only result from my point of view is that we are going to spend £500,000. I do not see anything else. We are repeating the
old game. We are all going to have peace, but England has to pay £500,000.

Mr. DEVLIN: It is our own money.

Sir F. BANBURY: One of the arguments held out to us last December was that if the Irish people liked to fight it out themselves it did not matter to us, and we should not have anything to do with it. It seems to me that is not correct. At any rate we have one thing to do, and that is to pay the money. There is always a disposition amongst Irishmen, irrespective of party, to put their hands in the pockets of the British taxpayer. If we could have peace in Ireland, no one would be more pleased than I should. It is hardly worth discussing it because it is a self-evident proposition. But are we going to have it by these continual new and fresh Agreements made one after the other? Is there any likelihood that anything will ever restore peace in Ireland except firm government by the only party who apparently can govern the Irish, and that is the English.

Colonel NEWMAN: If the right hon. Baronet were a Protestant farmer living on the borders of Tyrone, he would have read with great interest and relief that there has been some sort of peace declared on the Ulster frontier. I only wish that peace on the Ulster boundary could be extended to other parts of Ireland. This is the first time the three Governments—our Government, the Provisional Free State Government, and the Ulster Government—have actually met officially, and it is doubly unfortunate that only two Governments out of the three can be spoken for in this House. We can learn from the Government Front Bench what our Government is able to do. We have the advantage of having the brother of the Prime Minister of the North of Ireland here to tell us what the Northern Parliament is able to do, and what Ulster thinks of it. But we have no one here to speak in any way at all for the Provisional Government, I hoped the hon. Member for the Falls Division might have been able to do so, but he never does. Therefore we who try to represent the scattered minority of 350,000 people in the South of Ireland are absolutely in the dark as to what is happening. We do not know what negotiations, if any, took place between the Colonial Secretary, Mr. Collins, Mr. Griffith, Mr. O'Higgins and
the other Irish Ministers Our position is pretty bad. We Southern loyalists have endured and are enduring great wrongs and great sufferings. We have endured them for several years, and at present there is no immediate prospect of these sufferings ceasing. Take Article 8 of this new Agreement between the three Governments—the return to their houses of persons who have been expelled to be secured by the respective Governments, the advice of the Committee mentioned in Article 5 to be sought in case of difficulty. That is splendid, as far as it goes, for those Catholics who have been expelled from their homes in Belfast or other parts of Ulster. Is it reciprocal? The Orange Hall was seized by parties of the Irish Republican Army. Is that going to be evacuated? Then, again, take the position of Southern Irish Loyalists who have been expelled from their homes, and had to leave Ireland and are living here, helped by funds provided by the generosity of people in this country and to a certain extent helped also by the Government. Has anything been done? Has Mr. Collins, Mr. Griffith, Mr. O'Higgins or anyone else been asked by the Colonial Secretary, "Cannot you get these poor Southern Loyalist refugees allowed to return to their homes?"

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not open to hon. Members to discuss this Agreement, as I said just now, except in so far as it be relevant to the Lords Amendments to this Bill.

Colonel NEWMAN: I think I ought to be allowed to go as far as one or two other Members have gone, and to ask one or two questions arising out of the Agreement reached last night. Has anything been done between our Government and the Provisional Government to allow these unfortunate people, living in great poverty and want, to go back to their homes? That is the only question I want to put, and having asked it, I will sit down.

Sir MAURICE DOCKRELL: I bow with all respect to the ruling of the Chair, and do not intend to make any remarks bearing upon details that will be out of order. As an Irishman who has lived all his life in the South of Ireland, and who represents in this House a Southern Irish constituency, I have from the start supported this Treaty. I consider that I ought not for one moment to interpose
between the House and the ratification of the Treaty. I would like to take this opportunity of congratulating the Secretary of State for the Colonies upon his very great and marked ability in piloting this question through the House. It reminds me of an incident recorded of a man on the staff of the Duke of Wellington who was going into action. Someone remarked that he was looking very pale; in fact, he said he was a coward. The reply was, "No, he is not a coward; he is a brave man who realises what he is facing." The Secretary of State for the Colonies knows more than is known by myself and others in this House, for he has access to facts that are not available to us. I congratulate him upon the way he has dealt with this question.
Considerable apprehension exists in Ireland as to what will be the position of various classes under Article 10 of the Agreement. There is one class in particular, a very splendid class, the Dublin Metropolitan Police, who have rendered very great service in the past to the Government. They have certain guarantees given to them now, but in their opinion those guarantees fall short of what they might reasonably demand. The Royal Irish Constabulary are in a stronger position than the Dublin Metropolitan Police. I appeal to the Government on the subject. I have already had an opportunity, during an interview which lasted more than two hours, of expressing my views to the Chief Secretary, and I must say that the right hon. Gentleman received sympathetically the arguments addressed to him. At the same time we must have regard to the transition period. A force of about 700 men will be affected by the proposals of the Government. I appeal to the Government to treat these men with generosity. It will be found to be a paying proposition. It will relieve the Free State of pensions. These men should be able to enter into the service of the Free State without the feeling that they have been treated in a mean or an unfair way.
As to the other classes affected, I do not propose at the moment to say anything except that I heartily reciprocate all the hopes expressed here. I have the strongest confidence that all the best elements in Irish life will come to the front, and although possibly, as some hon. Gentleman has said, we may have to face very serious difficulties yet, we must try to
back up the men who are to govern Ireland. Then we Irishmen will have nothing to blame ourselves for, and this great Empire will have done a very good stroke for the country.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Before this Treaty leaves the House, I wish to say what a danger, in my opinion, is the mad idea which the present Government have that they can settle the most difficult problems both in Europe and in this country by formulas and conferences. What is still more serious, and what has been exemplified especially by the Treaty which we are discussing, is the fact that so obsessed are the Government with the idea that a conference or a formula will settle the matter in hand, that as soon as the conference has been held, they actually take action on the assumption that what they desire, or what they have in mind, has actually taken place? What did they do with regard to Ireland? The very moment that this so-called Treaty was agreed to, they sent telegrams all over the world saying, "After 700 years of turmoil, we have peace in Ireland." Naturally, they received replies congratulating them on this splendid accomplishment. There is something more serious still. Not only did they send telegrams all over the world, but they at once gave orders for the removal of the police and the, military and all the implements of government in Southern Ireland, on the assumption that what the Agreement aimed at had actually been accomplished.
There has been nothing which has done more to prevent those who signed the Treaty on behalf of Southern Ireland—Mr. Collins, Mr. Griffith, and those associated with them—from carrying it to fruition than the fact that the Government have already given away everything they had to give away at the moment the Treaty was signed. If Mr. Collins could go to the electors in Southern Ireland and say, "If you will only approve of this Treaty, the soldiers and police will be removed, and you will have the government which you have so long desired," what a tremendous argument that would be for him in meeting the contentions of Mr. de Valera. No, everything has been given away, and, what is worse, there is no government at all in Southern Ireland. I remember very well that some months ago the Secretary for the Colonies, in justifying the expenditure of many
millions in Mesopotamia, said—he convinced me by his argument—"We have destroyed the government in Mesopotamia. We have not yet set up a government in its place. Is it right to remove our troops, to remove the military government which we have there at the moment before a government has been set up to take its place? Surely this House of Commons will not grudge me the necessary money to keep in existence some form of government, and will not leave that area to anarchy." Yet in regard to Ireland that is the very thing which the right hon. Gentleman and the Government have done. They have removed the troops and police, and have left Southern Ireland in a state of anarchy before the new government is in a position to take over responsibility. I think this is one of the most serious abnegations of government which any responsible body of Ministers could possibly have committed.
I desire to reply to the criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for the Falls Division of Belfast (Mr. Devlin) regarding those who are opposed to his view. He did not refer to me personally, but I associate myself with the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford (Lord H. Cecil) and others who have consistently opposed Home Rule as not only bad for this country, but bad for Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Member of the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) said we still believed we were right. It is not a question of belief. We have proved that we were right. When Mr. Birrell took over the government of Ireland, after 12 or more years of Unionist government, he said Ireland was absolutely peaceful and prosperous, indeed more so than at any time in the past 700 years. Those who hold another view from that which we hold, have created turmoil, have brought malefactors from overseas into Ireland, and have destroyed the peacefulness and joyousness of life, which naturally characterises the Irish people both North and South. It is not open to the hon. Member for the Falls Division to throw these criticisms in the teeth of those who are just as devoted to Ireland as he is—and I know he acknowledges that—but who have different ideas as to how peace and tranquillity can be attained.
The hon. Member also referred to the gallant men from Ireland who supported
us during the War. I acknowledge the debt of gratitude which this country owes to those splendid Irish soldiers, but how are those men being treated in Ireland to-day? They are being hounded out of every kind of public life; they can get no place at all. I have letter after letter from such men asking me to get them tickets to come over here to England so that they may get some kind of work. They write in the following strain: "I am in distress and penury. I served your country during the War. I see you have been asking questions in the House of Commons, but what is the good of questions if you are going to leave me in Cork or Kilkenny or Galway in fear of my life? Send me money or get me a job over there. We stood by you in the War, and this is the way we are treated when we get back to Ireland." Letters of that sort are constantly being received by me, and it is clear that by this Treaty, without safeguarding the interests of these men, a grave injustice has been done.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: There is one point on which I desire information. Since last December, when the Treaty was agreed to between the Irish Southern representatives and the Government, and a favourable position seemed to have been created so far as the Southern Irish people were concerned, certain developments have taken place. I want to find out, if possible, who is responsible for the delay which has given an opportunity to those who have no intention of working the Treaty, but whose business it is to attempt to destroy it, and to put an end to the possibility of peace between Ireland and England. On whose responsibility was this done and this opportunity given to the opponents of the Treaty? The only Motion allowed during the previous discussion of the Treaty in this House was a Motion proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary allowing for a delay in bringing about the elections, setting up the constitution, and carrying out the final settlement. Was that done on the responsibility of the Government? In view of what may happen during the next year or two, judged from an impartial outside view, the Government should make it positively clear to the public generally and to the world that they were not responsible for this delay.
I think even the most hidebound "Diehard" in this House wishes well to the
Irish people, and hopes that the Treaty will end the present turmoil and disputes naturally engendered as a result of the feeling created in Ireland. We all hope it will change the present dismal outlook—for it is dismal—and bring peace to the Irish people. When the Treaty was signed, it was hailed with delight, and when Dail Eireann followed up the decision of this House, and ratified the Treaty, I think, could the matter have been put at once to the people of Ireland, there would have been a ten to one vote in its favour. As far as one can see, that would have been the case. Once it had been adopted by the Irish people as their policy, as the result of a plébiscite, any attempt by de Valera or by the Irish Republican Army to fight the Treaty would have been an attack on the decision of the Irish people themselves. Some sinister influence, however, has been at work to delay and delay and delay from time to time, until an opportunity has been given to de Valera and the other opponents of the Treaty to propagate their views, and to divide Irish opinion on the subject. Only a few days ago that delay and that opportunity culminated in a meeting of a certain section—a considerable body—of officers of the Irish Republican Army in Dublin, in which they declared for a Republic, and determined to work only for Republic.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is really not relevant to the Lords Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member must not go into a review of the situation in Ireland.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I only desire to have the one point made clear. I can see that this delay is very likely intended to produce a deliberate effect, and to secure a bloody military dictatorship in Ireland. I want to be assured that the British Government are not responsible for that delay, but that we were, as I believe, quite willing to have taken a vote of the Irish people at the first available opportunity, and that the Motion officially put forward in this House by the right hon. Gentleman was at the request of somebody in Ireland, and was not really the intentional policy of the British Government.

Mr. CHURCHILL: As I can only speak by indulgence of the House, I crave that indulgence to intervene now. Let me assure my hon. and gallant Friend
that he is perfectly correct in his assumption that the British Government in this matter held a different view to that which was adopted. We consistently advised that the appeal should be made at the earliest possible moment, but we recognised that it was really not for us to judge, that the Ministers who had undertaken the responsibility in Ireland must be the judges, and must be taken as knowing their own business best. It remains to be seen whether the course they have adopted is not the wiser course after all.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think it is desirable that there should be some words from the party which I represent on the final stages of this Treaty Bill. I am sure the hon. Members who sit behind me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"]—join in the good wishes expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward) for the Irish people, and for the future of Ireland under the Treaty. We all extend our best wishes to the Irish people. Some do so with a good conscience and some with a bad conscience—a conscience that may have been seared by a period of Black and Tanism. But in any case that period is now at an end. All sections of the House of Commons hope, that the present Provisional Government will pull through. If any great result does come from this Treaty, it will be to a certain extent due to the extremely tactful handling of this question by the right hon. Gentleman who is now in charge of Ireland (Mr. Churchill). It is a death-bed repentance on his part, but it is a handsome death-bed repentance, and if only he carries on in the way he is now going there will be a possible chance of a real settlement. But it is obvious that a party such as he leads now, with a past such as they have behind them, are not eminently fitted for bringing any permanent settlement to Ireland. Although his method of dealing with the question in the House has been an improvement on that of a previous Secretary for Ireland, we may hope that when this Government eventually leaves its present position, and comes on to these benches, the party that takes its place will be better fitted, through its past and its capacity, for dealing adequately with the Irish people.

Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Provisions for giving the force of law to and carrying into effect Irish Agreement.)

"(1) The Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland set forth in the schedule to this Act shall have the force of law as from the date of the passing of this Act:

(2) For the purpose of giving effect to Article 17 of the said Agreement, Orders in Council may be made transferring to the Provisional Government established under that Article the powers and machinery therein referred to, and as soon as may be and not later than four months after the passing of this Act the Parliament of Southern Ireland shall be dissolved and such steps shall be taken as may be necessary for holding, in accordance with the law now in force with respect to the franchise number of members and method of election and holding of elections to that Parliament, an election of members for the constituencies which would have been entitled to elect members to that Parliament, and the members so elected shall constitute the House of the Parliament to which the Provisional Government shall be responsible, and that Parliament shall, as respects matters within the jurisdiction of the Provisional Government, have power to make laws in like manner as the Parliament of the Irish Free State when constituted. Any Order in Council under this Section may contain such incidental, consequential, or supplemental provisions as may appear to be necessary or proper for the purpose of giving effect to the foregoing provisions of this Section.

(3) No writ shall be issued after the passing of this Act for the election of a member to serve in the Commons House of Parliament for a constituency in Ireland other than a constituency in Northern Ireland."

Lords Amendment:

At the end of Sub-section (1) insert:
Provided that if an address is presented to His Majesty under Article 12 of the said Agreement, then as from the date of that address and until identical Acts making other provisions are passed by the Parliaments of the Irish Free State and of Northern Ireland, the powers exercisable by the Council of Ireland under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, shall, as respects Northern Ireland, be exercisable as from the date of that address by the Government or Parliament of Northern Ireland as the case requires.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. REID: I do not want to prolong the Debate, but I do want to say a word on this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with a similar Amendment when the Bill was in Committee in this House, and he then admitted the case we made out; he admitted that the position was inconvenient and anomalous; but I think he took somewhat too airy a view of the position when, in his opening speech to-day, he said the matter could be easily dealt with. As a matter of fact, the question of dealing with the Diseases of Animals Act in causing difficulty in Ireland to-day. Power to administer these Acts is not given to the two Governments: it is given to the Council of Ireland. At this moment someone in Dublin is purporting to appoint veterinary inspectors to perform duties in Northern Ireland without any consultation whatever with 1he Government of Northern Ireland. Those men have no statutory power whatever to carry out their duties. No one appointed by the two Governments can have any power for that purpose. The breeding of pedigree stock is a very large industry in Tyrone and Fermanagh and some other parts of Northern Ireland, but as a result of the position that has arisen Northern Ireland is without a veterinary service, and there cannot be one until some further steps are taken. It may be that this is a technical breach of the Treaty, but I think the right hon. Gentleman might very well address himself to the Provisional Government and see that this matter is put right, because it is not a matter that can be dealt with by the two Governments. It is a pressing matter at the present moment, and something ought to be done to get the matter put right.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Like the right hon. Gentleman who is conducting this Bill, we are anxious to avoid causes of friction between the two Governments in Ireland in future, and I can imagine few causes of friction more certain to arise than will this one if we disagree with the Lords Amendment. Under the 1020 Act a Council was set up in Ireland on which there were to be representatives of the North and the South in equal numbers, but the whole position was entirely altered by the Treaty, and you have this extraordinary result, that questions of railways, fisheries, diseases of animals
and other questions in the North of Ireland would be settled by this Council, on which there would be representatives of the South who have nothing to do with those matters in the North of Ireland, and, per contra, the questions of railways, fisheries and diseases of animals in the South would be dealt with by the South without any consultation with the North. Whereas the South could interfere with the North in those matters, the North would have no voice in the South. Surely that is an intolerable anomaly. If it is right that the North should not interfere with the South, how can the right hon. Gentleman justify interference with the North by the South? The thing is not really arguable. My right hon. Friend says, "Let it be settled by agreement between the two Governments." Does he forget that already there has been an attempt to settle it between Sir James Craig and Mr. Michael Collins? An agreement was signed between them which would have settled this question, but, unfortunately, that agreement was thrown into the waste paper basket, not by Sir James Craig, but for some reason—I am not judging the matter now about Mr. Collins—but for some reason or other that agreement has been abandoned. What is the use of telling us now that we are to look to an agreement in the future? Agreement has been tried and has failed, and what reason is there to suppose that there is more chance of an agreement now than there was then? I venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that shelving the difficulty is creating trouble in the future. Let us face these things. It is no good to say "Everything will come right if you have good will and agreement on one side and the other." There is no good going forward with vague aspirations, and endeavouring to solve your difficulties by postponing them. The right hon. Gentleman has got the representatives of Southern Ireland here, and he has made an agreement with them—and I must congratulate them about it and about the success which has attended the negotiations between them—and why should he not go to them and point out frankly and fairly the real difficulty? Instead of trusting to some vague and misty future to come to an agreement, why does he not go to them now, in the present spirit of mutual co-operation, and clear up this very real and great
difficulty? That would be a reasonable course, and the only course which appears to me to be consistent with the views I have expressed, and which are expressed with the real object of getting rid of a real danger.

Major HILLS: I think I can convince my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) that the danger to which he refers will not arise. The Senate of Southern Ireland under the Act of 1920 has ceased to exist. There is no House of Commons and there is no Senate, and therefore members from Southern Ireland on the Irish Council cannot be appointed. It is quite clear the Act of 1920 will have to be amended: but I submit to my hon. and learned Friend that it is a very dangerous thing to specify a single Amendment, when that Amendment is one of several Amendments, for thereby you may exclude other Amendments. The fact is the Act of 1920 is in many respects obsolete. Again I appeal to my hon. and learned Friend, as a lawyer, does not he think that it would be a dangerous thing to the cause which he have at heart to specify certain Amendments, whereby he might be held to exclude other Amendments of equal importance? Of course we all wish to do what he wants; and no one wants the Council of Ireland to have certain powers in Northern Ireland which are not applicable; but I do submit that the way to put that right is not in this Bill but by an Amendment of the Act of 1920.

Colonel NEWMAN: The hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills) has not read the Bill. The Bill says:
As soon as may be alter the passing of this Act the Parliament of Southern Ireland shall be dissolved.
The House of Commons of Southern Ireland is sitting, only it calls itself the Dail Eireann. The members of Dail Eireann are the members who were elected under the Act of 1920. The. Northern Parliament is functioning. It has both a House of Commons and a Senate. Only one thing stands in the way of setting up the Irish Council, and that is that the Southern Irish Senate is not working. Why not allow the Dail Eireann to nominate their seven Senators? Then they could set up the Irish Council. The hon. and gallant Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel J.
Ward) is perfectly right in blaming the Government for consenting to postponement of the Irish General Election. The consequence of that postponement is that we have a hiatus of three months, during which many things may happen. If we could have some sort of a Council or Standing Committee which could deal with difficulties arising between the Northern Irish Parliament and the Irish Free State, we should be doing a good work. I regard the abrogation of the Irish Council as something like a disaster. I do appeal to the Government to put something in the place of the Irish Council during the months that must elapse before the General Election.

1.0 P.M.

Sir W. DAVISON: The Article which my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Durham (Major Hills), forgot is a matter of very great importance. That is Article 13 of the Treaty. Had it simply been that the provisions of the Act of 1920 as regards the Council of Ireland had been overlooked at the Conference, provision might have been made in the matter. But it is very much more serious than that, because the provisions of the Act of 1920 were not overlooked, and a special Clause—Artide 13—was put in the Treaty, deliberately putting Ulster under the control of the Free State Government, although knowingly the Free State Government had no control over Ulster. This is the Article:
13. For the purpose of the last foregoing article the powers of the Parliament of Southern Ireland under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, to elect members to the Council of Ireland shall, after the Parliament of the Irish Free State is constituted, he exercised by that Parliament.
The Government deliberately gave power to the Irish Free State Parliament to concern itself with private Bills in Ulster—with railways, diseases of animals, and other matters. I said just now the Government were obsessed by the idea of solving difficult questions by formula and conference. This is another example. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech to-day referred to this Amendment as a matter of convenience. It is very much more than that. It is a matter that may be vital in many respects. He said the inconvenience of the Council of Ireland could be removed by agreement between the two Parliaments of
Northern and Southern Ireland after they had conferred together. That would be all very well if the two Parliaments were co-equal, and if they were negotiating on an equal basis, but they would not be, and it must also be remembered that the Free State Parliament is determined, in every way possible, to force Ulster to come into the Free state. The only object that could have been in the Government's mind in inserting Article 13 in the Treaty, which this Amendment will deal with, was to give a lever or a weapon to Southern Ireland to enable it, by pinpricks and by interference with Northern Ireland, to force Northern Ireland to come under the Free State. It is a perfectly simple matter which requires no embellishment, and I hope the House will insist on this Lords Amendment being made.

Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

At the end of Sub-section (1), insert:
 Provided further that if an address is presented to His Majesty under Article 12 of the said Agreement, then as from the date of that address and until identical Acts making other provisions are passed by the Parliaments of the Irish Free State and of Northern Ireland, any appeal from His Majesty's Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland shall, instead of as provided by Section forty-three of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, lie to the House of Lords in the same manner and subject to the like conditions as an Appeal from His Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland lay to the House of Lords before the passing of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Churchill.]

Captain CRAIG: I understand the Colonial Secretary refuses to accept this Amendment on the ground that this would interfere with the Treaty, but I ask him to reconsider the question. The position at present, as those interested in the 1920 Act know, is that we have in Ulster an Appeal Court of our own. At the time the 1920 Bill was going through this House, Ulster representatives endeavoured to make the final appeal an appeal from the Ulster Court of Appeal to the House of Lords, but for some reason best known to themselves the Government adopted what everybody, I think, admitted was a
very cumbrous and unnecessary form, and introduced another Court of Appeal between the Ulster Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, namely, the High Court of Appeal of Ireland, which sits in Dublin and is manned by judges from both Ulster and Southern Ireland. He-presentations were made to the Government, but there were apparently vested interests concerned, and that cumbrous procedure was adopted. I would like to ask the Government how they can argue that the removing of that unnecessary Court of Appeal, which nobody wants, can be said in any way to interfere with the Treaty. This has nothing to do with Southern Ireland. It is a matter entirely for Ulster itself, and I cannot conceive for one moment that Mr. Collins or anybody else in the South of Ireland could produce one single argument against the disappearance of this Court.

Mr. CHURCHILL: May I interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend for one moment? This matter was discussed at considerable length in the Conference, and I am quite entitled to say that both the Northern and Southern representatives were agreed that this Court should be abolished, but they were also agreed that this was not the moment to do it, that it would be premature now, and that the proper time to do it would be in the legislation connected with the Constitution of the Free State.

Captain CRAIG: I have the greatest respect, certainly, for the majority of the gentlemen who took part in that Conference, but I cannot possibly be asked to agree with them in that. If it is possible to do away now and here with this Court of Appeal, without interfering with the Treaty, I put it to tire House that surely it ought to be done, especially as we have it now from the right hon. Gentleman that all the members of the Conference agree that this Court must be done away with at the earliest possible moment. The argument which the right hon. Gentleman has adduced so often against accepting our Amendments is that nothing can be accepted which will interfere with the Treaty. It is a question for this House to decide whether this does interfere with the Treaty or not, and I say, and I leave it to the feeling of the House to agree with me, that it does not interfere with the Treaty. If that be so, then I say, For goodness' sake, let us get
rid at once of what all are agreed ought no longer to exist.

Sir J. BUTCHER: The interruption of the right hon. Gentleman during the course of my hon. and gallant Friend's speech just now has really removed the only possible difficulty that ought to stand in the way of our accepting this Amendment. What is the position now! It is, in the first place, admitted that this does not modify or touch the Treaty in any way, and the second point is that it is a purely Ulster measure, not affecting a solitary person in the South of Ireland. All that it says is that if an Ulster litigant who has gone to the Court of Appeal in Ulster wishes to go to the House of Lords, he should be at liberty to do so direct, instead of being subjected I of the great delay of going through another Court of Appeal first. Perhaps some reckless lawyer might say it is a good thing to have another Court of Appeal to intervene, so that there might be four trials, namely, before the Court of First Instance in Northern Ireland, the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland, the High Court of Appeal in Dublin, and then the House of Lords, but I cannot imagine that any intelligent litigant or layman would say it is a reasonable thing, and indeed I do not think the right hon. Gentleman himself says it is reasonable. He says it is right that this intermediate Court of Appeal in Dublin should be abolished.
Then we have this further statement to-day, which I think is very important, namely, that the two Governments agreed yesterday that this Court should be abolished so that the sole question left is as to whether this Clause, which is so desirable, necessary, and acceptable, should be left in the Bill, or should be postponed to some future period. I cannot conceive why it should be postponed. The right hon. Gentleman has given us no reason for postponing it. Is there anything in the nature of things which makes it right to postpone it? I suppose that if you were quite certain that in another week or another month you might be dealing with this matter and that you had an agreement by everybody, there would be no great difference between passing it now and passing it then, but let me point out this—and I say this as one who is at present supporting the Government—that there is the possibility, and it is no good shutting our eyes to it,
that this Government may not be in power for ever. I am putting it very mildly, but let me put it a little more strongly. There is a possibility that this Government may not be in power when the time comes for putting this provision into the Bill of which the Colonial Secretary speaks. [An HON. MEMBER: "Leicester!"] It is an interesting incident—one of those curious fluctuations. I am not going to be drawn into that. I will confine myself to what I was venturing to urge upon the House, that we have now the opportunity of removing an admitted injustice upon the inhabitants of Northern Ireland, and I say it is just possible that an occasion as convenient as the present may not arise. Therefore, I appeal to the Colonial Secretary, or his deputy for the time being, the Secretary of State for War, to allow us to keep in this Amendment of the Lords. For myself, if the Government do not agree to it, I shall certainly ask the House to divide, in the hope of securing, not a victory for us, but a victory for Ireland and common sense.

Mr. REID: I understand the Colonial Secretary admits that this Amendment is not in any way a breach of the Treaty. I cannot possibly see how it can be a breach of the Treaty, because it is an Amendment consequential upon the Treaty. Under the Act of 1920, this Court is constituted of members of the High Court of Northern Ireland and of the High Court of Southern Ireland, but under the Treaty the High Court of Southern Ireland disappears. We had a rather illuminating remark the, other day from the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who drew a distinction between His Majesty's Courts and the Free State Courts. I was under the impression that in any part of the British Empire justice was done in the name of His Majesty, and that if the Free State remains part of the British Empire, the Courts are His Majesty's Courts. This is only a side issue, but even in the mind of the Chief Secretary, it is perfectly clear that the Free State Courts are going to be different altogether from the Court constituted in 1920, the High Court of Southern Ireland. The net result of this change is that it is now impossible to constitute this Court of Appeal in Ireland. One constituent part has disappeared, and, therefore, it is quite im-
possible to constitute the Court apart from the Act. The result is that it is impossible for a litigant in Northern Ireland, who wishes to go to the House of Lords on Appeal, to go there. The net result of disagreeing with this Amendment is to make the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland the final Court of resort to a suitor in Northern Ireland That is a very serious change in the Taw, and a change, apparently, not contemplated by anyone when the Treaty was drawn up.
I understood, when I came down this morning, that this Amendment, probably, would be accepted. However that may be, the real point is that, owing to the disappearance of the High Court of Southern Ireland, this Court of Appeal cannot be constituted. Therefore, a man cannot go to the House of Lords, because a necessary preliminary in the Act of 1920 has disappeared. It is quite ridiculous to say that a litigant in Northern Ireland shall be satisfied with a Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland. This is not a momentary thing. The Government talk as if the Irish Constitution were going to be adopted in a week or two, or a month or two. As a matter of fact, even the Treaty allows 12 months in these matters, and in 12 months, serious points of principle may arise. Under all the circumstances, I think the Government are behaving most unreasonably in not accepting the Amendment. It is a matter which does not concern the Treaty. It only concerns Ulster, and it is a matter on which all the people of Ulster are agreed, and to which the Provisional Government takes no objection. Under those circumstances, it seems to me pure obstinacy, pure obstructiveness, on the part of the Government, a pure attempt to put difficulties in the way of Northern Ireland. They have not met us in any way practically whatsoever. Surely they can meet us in one case where it interferes with no vested interests of any sort. It is quite true there is a Lord Chancellor, but the Lord Chancellor, so far as I can see, is derelict at the present moment. It does not alter his position. For all these reasons, I do ask the House not to disagree with this Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: I think the Ulster Members have made out a very strong case. It is obviously a Court that
nobody wants, even if it can be constituted. I remember during the progress of the Government of Ireland Act a good many of us on this bench and in other parts of the House said that the Act allowed too many Courts. But as it is now, it seems certain that this Court cannot even be constituted. At the same time, the Colonial Secretary has just told us that the representatives at the Conference agreed that they did not want the alteration made at once. [HON. MEMBERS dissented.] I understood him to say that, and there may be very good reasons of which we do not know. It may be that a question of this sort is bound up with other details that would also have to be altered at the same time. I, therefore, find myself in this difficulty, that I agree with the Ulster Members that this Court is not wanted, and cannot be constituted; but, at the same time, I am not prepared to go beyond the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland and the other representatives at the Conference, who distinctly said that they are prepared to make the alteration, but do not want to make it now.

Sir W. DAVISON: I should like the Colonial Secretary to give a definite assurance to the House as to the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland having requested that this Amendment should not be made now. The House ought to know where they are on this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for East Down (Mr. Reid) said that the result of this would be simply that the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland would be the final Court of Appeal, and it would prevent litigants going to the House of Lords. It does much more than that. It prevents a litigant having his case finally settled, because if he be not satisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland, all he has got to do is to give notice of appeal, and nothing more can be done. He has a right to go to the House of Lords, and if one of the steps is taken away, that litigation is kept in being. Therefore, justice is impeded, and it may be months before a decision can be arrived at by a man who is not satisfied with the decision of the Northern Court of Appeal. He gives notice of appeal, but he cannot be heard, because there is no possibility of having this Irish Court of Appeal created, and he is stopped on his way to the House of
Lords, and, in the meantime, the case is not settled. That is a very serious disability to place upon the citizens of any country, and I do hope the Colonial Secretary will give us some reason why he should not accept the Amendment. He says the parties in question are in agreement. Then surely, if this House is to have any voice at all, and is not to be treated simply as a debating shop, it ought to be given some reason why an absolutely reasonable Amendment should be rejected.

Mr. J. JONES: There are others be sides the hon. Members from Ulster who are interested in the future of Ireland. Those of us Irishmen who live in England ought to be entitled to say something on a matter of this character. This Amendment is part of the machinery, or deals at least with a part of the machinery, of the future Government of Ireland. Under the Agreement recently arrived at, and announced here last night, I suggest that the very matter which is being so vehemently discussed is one of the very questions which ought to be dealt with by the people in authority in Ireland, both North and South. Why should not the men in the North of Ireland co-operate with the men in the South in settling their differences and difficulties? What is there essentially different between us? It is now simply a number of lawyers arguing and trying to create difficulties. By the Amendments which have been put upon the Paper, the fact may be seen that that spirit is not going to die so long as some Members live. I suggest that the men who met in London yesterday, and the day before—and Sir James Craig was one of them—will be able to adjust this matter as they have settled bigger difficulties than this question of the Court of Appeal. They have settled bigger problems, and I hope and believe, they can solve any other problem as soon as Irishmen are prepared to knock their heads together, [Laughter.] Yes, instead of knocking their heads together in another way as they have done for a long time. There is sufficient common sense amongst the men who represent both the North and the South of Ireland to solve a difficulty of this character. As an Irishman I object to the English Constitution inflicting their authority upon the people of Ireland, either the North or South. Consequently we oppose this Amendment.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I think hon. Members are entitled to know why the Government are not agreeing with this Amendment. It is not any obstructionism on their part; it is simply that if this Amendment were accepted the effect would be a technical alteration of the Treaty. The Act of 1920 set up this Court of Appeal. It is really a very small matter. It does not have the inconvenience some hon. Members have thought, namely, that litigants would be stopped in their course to the House of Lords, or that they would have one of the legs to the Court of Appeal knocked from under them. The Court of Appeal exists, and will exist until the Free State Constitution comes into operation. At that time, it is quite certain, this question will have to be dealt with. Talking of what happened at the Conference yesterday, I may say that Sir James, Craig would have preferred that this should be dealt with at this moment, but the exact argument I have stated to the House was put before him then, and he acquiesced in postponement. It is understood that there will have to be an alteration in the Court of Appeal, but the proper time to effect this is when the Constitution of the Free State comes up for consideration in this House. I hope that hon. Members will agree to this course. It is not obstructionist on the part of the Government that they refuse this, but it really is because we do not want to give the opponents of the Treaty any ground, however ridiculous, to say we have altered the Treaty.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I was going to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman. He says that Sir James Craig would prefer this matter dealt with now.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: We have preferred it!

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us this: Is there any agreement in existence binding the representatives of the Irish Free State which will ensure a provision of this sort if we desire that it shall be put in?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Constitution of the Free State will have to make provision for the judiciary of the Free State. Thus far there will have to be a change from the 1920 Act. What I said as to Sir James Craig was this, that
he would have preferred it to have been dealt with in this Bill, but arguments were addressed to him yesterday, as I have addressed them to the House to-day, and I certainly understood that: he acquiesced in the proposal.

Captain CRAIG: Would it not be possible, as soon as this Bill which we are now discussing is passed, for the Provisional Government to get rid of any Courts which at present exist if they like? As soon as this Bill is passed, has not the Provisional Government all the powers of Government until a Constitution is set up? If that be so, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that they can do away the day after to-morrow, if this Bill becomes law to-day, with any Courts they like, and if that be so, how does the right hon. Gentleman tell us that this Court of Appeal set up by the 1920 Act will be in existence until the Constitution of the Free State is finally settled?

Sir J. BUTCHER: May I have an answer, if possible, to my question? Have we any binding agreement on the part of the representatives of the Irish Free State that a provision to the effect of this Amendment will be introduced?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I was trying to explain just now to my hon. and learned Friend that there is no need for such a binding agreement, because the Constitution of the Free State must provide for the judiciary of the Free State. That will be an alteration of the 1920 Act judiciary, and consequently at the same time we shall have to deal with this matter.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Deal with it. Suppose they leave out this Intermediate Court of Appeal?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I cannot say at this moment what the Constitution of the Free State will be that will be put before this House. If it alters this it will be leaving out this Court of Appeal. With regard to the other question, I do not understand that they will have power to alter the law in this matter; I do not really understand what my hon. and gallant Friend means.

Captain CRAIG: Surely the Provisional Government between now and the time when the Constitution is settled have absolute power in Ireland I They can do away with any Department they
like or substitute one Department for another. I understand that they have, as soon as this Bill is passed, the fullest possible powers of government which, of course, includes doing away with Departments which they think are superfluous or unnecessary, substituting one Court for another, or combining two Courts together.

Sir L. WORTH INGTON-EVANS: No, no; my hon. and gallant Friend really must draw a distinction between administrative powers and the powers of the Law Courts, which, he knows, are not under the Executive of the day. These are established by Statute, and these Statutes will remain until the Free State has its powers under the Constitution, and is enabled to legislate for itself.

Mr. REID: I would like to ask if the Lord Chancellor dies, is there any obligation on the Free State to appoint a substitute?

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the hon. Member not aware that a Lord Chancellor in Ireland never dies. There are three of them pensioned at the present time.

Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

At the end of Sub-section (1) insert:
Provided further that it is hereby declared that the British Government does not seek under Article 10 or any other article of the said Agreement, to evade its just responsibilities to, and engagements with, public servants of His Majesty in Southern Ireland, and undertakes to continue responsible for payment of compensation or pension, as the case may be, to judges, officials, members of police forces, and other public servants on terms not less favourable than those provided for such public servants under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have to draw the attention of the House to this Amendment as being, in my opinion, one of privilege. It might be said that it is merely declaratory. I must, however, assume that it is effective. In so far as it has any effect, it must be to diminish the residuary part of the reserved taxes. Those are matters over which the other House has no control, and I must declare this Amendment to be one of privilege.

Lord H. CECIL: I submit that the language of the Amendment is only declaratory. It says:
It is hereby declared that the British Government does not seek under Article 10, or any other Article of the said Agreement, to evade its just responsibilities.
In my view this is only declaratory, and no change is being made.

Mr. SPEAKER: When the other House deals with a money matter, I am bound to assume that it has some effect, and I am bound to call attention to it as a matter of privilege.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Assuming this is a privilege Amendment, it is always open to us to waive our privilege, and I understand that can only be done after Debate. Therefore I would suggest that it would be proper that we should be allowed to debate this Amendment, and move to agree with it.

Mr. SPEAKER: What I have said does not in any way debar the House from discussing this Amendment. The representative of the Government or anybody else can either move to agree or disagree with it.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I hope the Colonial Secretary will give further consideration to this Amendment, and if he cannot accept it as it is worded, I trust he will bring up other words to deal with this matter. It was admitted in the other place that the wording was not ideal, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to waive our privilege. Let us consider who these men are who are dealt with in this Amendment. They are public servants in Ireland who for years past have been putting down what used to be considered crime, but which, owing to its success, has been condoned. There is not any change in human nature owing to this artificial and newer definition of crime, and the people with whom they have dealt, in some cases will undoubtedly have very strong feelings against- those who were formerly engaged in the maintenance of law and order.
I am not suggesting that the present Provisional Government are not entirely honest in their desire to do what is right to these public servants, but we do not know how long it is going to last. There may be civil war in Ireland, and therefore
we must see that those who have served the Irish nation in the past are not left without anyone to pay the pensions which they are entitled to receive. We do not want to relieve the Irish Government of its liabilities, but we want to protect these men in Ireland, who may have few friends in the future, by giving them the powerful assistance of the British Government to get their rights considered. Article 10 of the Agreement deals only with the men who are discharged by the Government or who retire in consequence of the change of Government effected in pursuance hereof. The majority of Irish civil servants are not covered by that provision in any shape or form.
The Act of 1920 deals with different classes in different ways. Civil servants were not entitled to go of their own free will and they could only retire under the Act for the statutory conditions which will be found in Schedule B under which a Committee is set up, and they were only allowed to let civil servants retire if they could show that their duties under the new Government were not the same or analogous to the duties previously performed or that their position was materially altered. As regards the majority of civil servants under that provision, they will not be entitled to retire, and personally I think it is most desirable that they should stay on, because it is the best hope of avoiding chaos that these men should stop on and help the new Government to get things started. Surely we must have some provision for the men who retire in the future, and who are left out entirely by the wording of Clause 10.
I asked a few weeks ago when the Government would re-enact the provisions of the 1920 Act, because there is nothing whatever laid down to secure that if these men stay on they are to get the pensions in consideration of which they undertook their service. I think it is absolutely unjust to the civil servant if A makes a contract with B to transfer his obligation to a third party without the consent of B. Whatever may be the position of the Government, it is absolutely imperative that they should admit only what is common honesty between one man and another. After 10 years, if one of these civil servants retires, how is he to bring himself under Clause 10? How is he to prove
he is retiring in pursuance of this agreement in consequence of the change of Government affecting him? He will have no means whatever of enforcing his claim. The Government have told us again to-day that they accept full ultimate responsibility. What is their objection to saying so in this Bill and to making it absolutely plain? Personal assurances by Ministers are nothing like so valuable to the civil servant as a claim based on statute. Ministerial pledges often are binding only while Ministers remain in office. They cannot control their successors. The right hon. Gentleman has practically admitted, at any rate he has led us to infer, that this guarantee is of much more value if it rests on ministerial responsibility than if embodied in the Treaty. It was practically said in another place that if you put this in you are removing the liability from the Irish Government; that in other words, the ministerial bond is worth nothing. I only want to see the contingent liability remain on the British Government. Either the ministerial pledge is binding or it is not. If it is binding then the argument about removing the obligation from the Free State Government falls to the ground, and there should be no possible difficulty involved in putting the matter clearly in the Bill. If, however, this contingent liability is not binding, and if these men who do not go immediately as a result of the setting up of the Irish Government, are as a consequence to have no claim, then I think this House will be perpetrating a very great injustice. These men served both Ireland and Great Britain to the best of their ability. They have served the country well and have not even grudged their lives in its cause. I beg the right hon. Gentleman, if he cannot accept these words, to bring, up some other form of words as an alternative to deal with these very hard cases.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot, on behalf of the Government, agree to waive this question of privilege. Neither can I accept the kind of language in which this Amendment is couched. If the Irish Government undertakes this obligation, I cannot agree to cast such a slur upon them as to assume beforehand, in legislative form, that they are going to fail in keeping their agreement. I think it would be most undesirable to take such a course. It would be accepted as a statutory indi-
cation to them to shelve the burden and to pass it on to us. I am advisel it is most undesirable we should take the course proposed, and I shall certainly oppose the Amendment. At the same time, I take this opportunity of renewing what we have repeatedly said on behalf of His Majesty's Government, namely, that in the event of default on the part of the Irish Government, the British Government accepts full responsibility for the liability which is prescribed in the present legislation. What is that liability? It is the liability laid down in the Act of 1920. My hon. Friend asks: "Suppose a man does not retire now, but takes service under the new Government, and then finds things are not as he thought they would be, and as his position is very disagreeable he would prefer to leave the service, what will be his position?" During a period of seven years he will have a chance of retiring. It seems to me that that ought to be sufficient. I hope the Committee will not press me in this matter, either on the ground of privilege or on the merits of the case.

Lieut-Colonel GUINNESS: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this provision as to the term of seven years only applies to men who can show that their conditions of service have been changed? They have no right to go in the seven years unless they can comply with that condition. I think the right hon. Gentleman really ought to show us that there is some provision for these men who do not retire in consequence of the change of Government, but go on to the end of their period of service, and there ought to be some provision securing their pension if they retire under the age limit.

Major HILLS: I submit to the House that this point is a much bigger one than has been suggested by the Colonial Secretary. It is not merely a question of default on the part of the Provisional Government. I hope and expect there will be no default. We do not want to weaken the responsibility of the Provisional Government. We want them to pay. We do not want this country to be again in the position which it has so often been in in the past of having to pay Irish liabilities. We all want to make the Free State the first party to pay, and I am sure the House also desires
that no injustice should be done to these men. There is a real danger in their ease. As to the question of guarantee, I will leave that on one side for the moment. My point is really wider than that. By Clause 10 of the Treaty the Free State agrees to pay compensation to her public servants who leave, or are discharged, or retire in consequence of the change of Government. To get compensation the civil servant must either be discharged or must retire in consequence of the change of Government. The compensation is based on the Act of 1920, which expressly lays down the terms on which civil servants are to receive compensation. It sets up a Committee who are to control retirement of civil servants, and in Clause 3 of Schedule 8 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, it is expressly stated that the Committee shall not give their permission to an officer to retire unless he falls within one of two categories—either he has been asked to withdraw, or has been given different work or different pay. What the House desires is that when the new Constitution comes into force existing civil servants shall be given a free choice either to go and get compensation, or to throw in their lot with the Irish Free State. If they throw in their lot with the Irish Free State, I am inclined to think that this House has no further obligation towards them. If they choose to serve the Irish Free State and not to take their compensation and go, I do not think that the British taxpayer ought to compensate them. But those who want to go ought to have a free choice to go, and they have not got that free choice, because they have to prove either that their work is different or that the terms of employment are different, whereas their real reason for going is that they do not like their employers.
I may be wrong, and, if so, I am open to correction, but, as far as I can read the Eight Schedule of the Act of 1920, they cannot go simply because they do not like serving the Irish Free State. I can see no Clause in the Treaty or in the Act of 1920 which gives them the right to retire just because they do not like employment under the Irish Free State. They have, to go within the very narrow bounds of people who are given different work or whose conditions of employment are changed. The whole
thing is so enormously important that unless we do something of this sort we may leave out the vast majority of the civil servants of the Irish Free State who want to go and yet to find that they cannot go. I am quite sure that the House does not want that. I believe that we all mean the same thing, and the Colonial Secretary has expressly said that this is not an Amendment which infringes the Treaty. I do not like the exact words of it. I think that they are too bellicose, but, if he would accept alternative words, I believe that the Amendment, would meet with the general acceptance of all parties in the House.

Lord H. CECIL: I think the case made is an exceedingly strong one, and I understand that the difficulty of the Government in accepting these precise words is partly on the ground of privilege and partly on the ground that the words are not very well framed for insertion in an Act of Parliament. There is this to be said, that the words do give a definite legislative security for all that the Act of 1920 gives, including the rights under the Superannuation Act, 1892, and do place the civil servants in the position of security to which the custom of this country entitles them. The Government may perfectly well meet the position. It they choose, they can meet it. I agree that, as a matter of form, we should have to disagree with this Amendment, but there is nothing to prevent another Amendment being moved and put in by the Government themselves in lieu thereof. There is no great reason why we should be in a violent hurry about the matter, and it might be necessary to adjourn. This is a matter that the Government ought to deal with legislatively if they can. They ought either to put it in this measure or give us a promise that it will be put in the Constitution Bill. We do not know, but the present Ministers may be out of office. It would be unreasonable to hold their successors bound in honour by their pledges, and, if the Government were not in office, there would be no security at all unless we had some legislative security. They ought, therefore, either to put it in this Bill or in the Constitution Bill, and it might be put in proper form and with all the details that belong to the Act of 1920. I hope
that the Government will not be deaf to our appeal that deals with a matter very deeply felt on all sides of the House.

2.0 P.M.

Colonel NEWMAN: I should like to reinforce the appeal made by the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness). I imagine hon. Members' post bags, like mine, include a vast number of letters from civil servants in Ireland of all sorts and grades who want to know how they are going to stand. I do not want, any more than anybody else in this House, to cast any slur in any way on the Provisional Government. That argument addressed to us by the Colonial Secretary was addressed to those in another place by the Lord Chancellor. We are told, on the one hand, how foolish we are to do anything that might be interpreted as a slur upon the Provisional Government, and, on the other hand, we are told that we are pointing out how that Provisional Government might evade their obligations and saddle this Government with these pensions. We are met to-day in the spirit of goodwill which has resulted in the truce, but we cannot shut our eyes to an obvious thing which the House seems in danger of forgetting. As a matter of fact, we are not giving the South of Ireland Parliament Dominion powers. We are doing something quite different. We are making a Treaty with a country which aims at independence, and says so openly. Our position is not that of granting Dominion rule as we did to Canada. We are in the same position now as when England conceded the Treaty to the United States of America a good many years ago. If hon. Members in this House read Irish newspapers, they will know perfectly well that the Government are always referred to as the "enemy Government." It is not the "British Government," but the "enemy Government." If that be the spirit of the Irish Free State Government or some future Government, because the Irish Free State Government may not last very long, they may regard the position of these civil servants as ex-servants of an ex-enemy Government. Surely, we ought to take every precaution that we can to protect these loyal servants of ours. I would like to read a few of the letters that I have received from these men who
are afraid and who despair of their future. In the Act of 1920 their position was very fully safeguarded. There was Clause after Clause dealing with their position. In the present Treaty they are dismissed in a few lines. Naturally, their suspicions are aroused. They want to know whether the Government stand by the Act of 1920, and, if they do, why they do not say so. If the Government cannot accept this Amendment, I do urge that they should put in some words which will ensure the position of these loyal servants.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I should like to join with certain hon. Members in the tribute which they have paid to the Colonial Secretary for the ability and reasonableness with which he has conducted these Debates. May I suggest that he has an opportunity of illustrating that ability and reasonableness upon which he has been complimented by accepting the Lords Amendment, which he can do with general assent. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] Well, with the assent, I hope, of the majority. At any rate, he can satisfy his own conscience. Let me suggest some reasons to him. In the first place, this Amendment does not touch the Treaty in any way. That is admitted, so that the great difficulty that we had on the last occasion when this Treaty Bill was being discussed, namely, that we should be (smashing the Treaty, does not arise now. Therefore, we can approach this matter with what I would venture to call an open mind. Why is this guarantee for the pensions and compensation of Irish public servants necessary? These officials have served this country with devotion, and, as regards the police, the Colonial Secretary will agree that they have served with courage and discipline, and have earned the gratitude of this country for the services they have rendered to it. Under the existing conditions, we are bound by a statutory obligation to pay them pensions and, in certain cases, compensation. We have no right, and I hope we have no desire, to try to get out of this obligation.
May I say, too, that this is a very large question) It affects tens of thousands of men who have most loyally served this country in the past, so that it is not some trifling thing that you can throw aside. It is a question affecting our honour and our obligation to tens of thousands of our public servants. Do not let us forget, also, that for the men who have served us
best the danger is greatest, and that, in the case of the Royal Irish Constabulary in particular, those men, who have most loyally and courageously served this country, are not likely to be favourably received in Ireland in the future. Therefore, it is an obligation of honour on this country to see that they are paid the compensation and pensions to which they are entitled. The Government say, "We agree with you, and so convinced are we of that that we will guarantee the payment of these pensions and compensation;" but all that they do is to give us a verbal guarantee. They object to putting it in the Act of Parliament. I should like to ask the Chief Secretary this question. Is it intended that this verbal guarantee, which has been given over and over again, that the British Government will pay if the Irish State Government do not pay, should be put into an Act of Parliament, if not now, at some future time? I do not know whether the Chief Secretary can answer that, but it would vitally affect the matter if he could answer it now. If he is not in a position to do so, I hope he will find out and tell us later.
Let me point to the importance of this. If it is to be put into an Act of Parliament later on, we ought to know into what Act it will be put, and if it is to be put into an Act of Parliament, why should it not be put in now, when we have the matter before us? Why should we, wait until some remote future? As has already been mentioned on former Amendments, it is by no means certain that the right hon. Gentleman who now sits upon and adorns the Government Bench will be there when the time comes for the passing of that future Act of Parliament. Will he give us any reason why, now that we have the matter in hand, and while it is admittedly, as I venture to think, subject matter for an Act of Parliament, it should not be put into this Measure? I hope my right hon. Friend will enlighten us on this point, because we ought not to be left in the dark as to what is to be done. He may say, "Oh, be quite content with the verbal guarantee you have got. It is quite enough, and it is not necessary to put it into any Act of Parliament." But would that really be a sound position? Is a verbal guarantee by a Minister sufficient to ensure the payment of moneys in the future? Of course, we know it is nothing of the kind.

Mr. JAMES WILSON: They are your friends.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I am not discussing whether they are my friends or not at the moment, and the hon. Member's interruption is really not relevant. I am talking about the position of Members of the House generally. Are we to understand that a promise made by a Minister as to the payment of money is really binding on all future Parliaments? Of course it is not. My right hon. Friend might pledge himself to bring the matter before Parliament, or to bring forward a Bill, but the pledge itself is absolutely worthless. If the pledge is worthless, why cannot my right hon. Friend make it worth something now? He has the opportunity of making it valuable; why cannot he do so now? My last word is with reference to something which fell from the Colonial Secretary. He says, "I do not want to put a slur upon the new Irish Government by suggesting that they may not meet their obligations." Of course, none of us want to do that. But what we want to know is this: If it is not putting a slur upon them to give a verbal guarantee that the British Government will pay if the Sinn Fein Government do not pay, why should it be putting a slur on them to import that verbal guarantee into an Act of Parliament I In other words, do I understand that, if you say verbally that the British Government will pay these pensions if the Sinn Fein Government make default, it is no slur at all; but that, once you put a Clause into an Act of Parliament saying precisely the same thing, but putting it into a form in which it is binding and of some value to the people who are going to get the payment, it is a slur I Surely the thing is ridiculous. If that be the only argument that can be used against this Amendment, I do not think anyone would accept that argument. I sincerely urge the Government to accept this Amendment, I do not say in the words in which it is now put forward—they may be able to find better words—but either to accept it in the form in which it is, or' to wipe out the Lords Amendment and put the guarantee which has been given verbally into a proper form, in which it would be a really effective instrument. Either of these alternatives we should be prepared to accept.

Mr. S. WALSH: I hesitate to say even a word upon this matter, and I have always been surprised at the web of words that hon. Members can weave over a matter which in itself is really simple. It has been decided from the Chair that this is a breach of the privilege of this House, inasmuch as this House is the deciding financial authority, and the Motion, accordingly, has been made, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords Amendment." Do we or do we not?' If we do not disagree with the Lords Amendment, we are in this matter taking on a very heavy responsibility, the nature of which is entirely undefined. Let us look at the words themselves. Of course one must admit that it is permissible to debate the matter with the desire to induce the Government to waive the question of privilege, but let us look at the kind of responsibilities that we are called upon to undertake. There are two kinds of definition, neither of which is complete. We are called upon to make a declaration that we will not evade our "just responsibilities." Will anyone in this House, or anyone outside, say what are our "just responsibilities" to a particular class of public servants? The whole thing is incapable of definition. Our just responsibilities to these people who are mentioned here are incapable of definition. Later there is a further phrase—"and engagements." That is coming within the area of some thing like positive definition. Yon know what an engagement is in the ordinary way. An engagement is put down in black and white and, having regard to the honour of the contracting parties, there is a real chance of carrying out their engagements with the other party. I defy anyone in the House to say what are "just responsibilities" or what class of servants could be brought within the most comprehensive terms used here. "Payment of compensation or pension as the case may be to judges"—we know who they are—"officials"—that is a very indefinite term—"members of police forces." What particular police forces? There is, first of all, the Royal Irish Constabulary, against which I have never heard a word said in my life. The only terms I have ever heard used in connection with that magnificent force are terms of the greatest possible admiration. We know who they are, but do we know who the rest are? We have heard of
police forces which have not deserved the admiration that has been almost invariably given to the Royal Irish Constabulary. Does it mean that this House can be called upon to pay compensation to them whenever they retire, actuated only by their own caprice? Certainly not. How could it do that? "Any other public servants." Would anyone tell me what is meant by the term, "other public servants?" It is not civil servants. We know who the civil servants are, we know the conditions of their employment, we know the years they have given to qualify themselves for their profession, we know definitely that there can be no doubt about the terms of their employment, and we know it is a point of honour to stand true to the conditions of their service and see that if they retire, because of the conditions being wholly unacceptable, or if they are discharged because of conditions which we need not specially define, because a new Government has come in with which they do not feel a political fellowship, they are entitled to their proper compensation or pension, as the case may be. But will anyone say what is meant by, "other public servants?" Even if it were not a question of privilege this Amendment could not possibly be accepted. But it is a question of privilege.
Let me go a little further. "On terms not less favourable than those provided under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920." We have to accept, the decision of the Speaker, but even if the Speaker had not given the decision that it is a question of privilege, when another place says to this House that we must enter into an obligation not lees favourable than particular terms already in existence, will any Member of the House say that the other place is not binding the action of this House? It may be a very good thing in itself. It may be a very proper thing to see to-day that your servants in future are treated not less favourably than they have been treated in the past. I will not say a word against the morality of that, but that the other House is in that sense limiting the freedom of this House, if this Amendment is accepted, upon financial matters surely no man in his senses can deny. The Government, in the exercise of its wisdom, might say, let the House vote out the assertion of its privilege, and because of the utterly
indefensible nature of the terms of the Amendment, first of all because it is in conflict with the liberties of this House, and secondly, because the terms may mean anything or nothing, and submit an Amendment on its own, because we can do it within the limits of our proper authority, though we will not allow any other House to compel us to it, that is a matter entirely for the Government, backed up by the authority of this House. Every one of us desires, I am quite sure, to see that sense of security given to public servants which ought never to be; invalidated, but this is not the way to do it and this is a breach of the privilege of this House. I hope the Government will not in any sense be beguiled into retreating from their present position.

Sir F. BANBURY: Is not the hon. Member aware that over and over again this House, at the instance of the Government, has waived its privilege? It is nothing new.

Mr. WALSH: I agree, but the Government have moved that this House doth disagree with this Amendment, and I say they are right on the point of privilege. They are right also on the point of procedure, because this Amendment would not really carry out what I am sure hon. Members themselves desire. You are bringing in an enormous area of people whom we have no right to bring in. The whole thing is so utterly vague. "Other public servants." Can anyone define that? "The responsibility we have entered into." Can anyone define that? "Engagement" is quite capable of something like, exact definition, but the other terms are so wide and so vague and so comprehensive that the whole of Ireland might very well be brought in. That is not the kind of Amendment the House ought to accept. The Government, after defeating the Amendment, care to bring in on their own authority and with the backing, of the House—?

Sir F. BANBURY: Or any other; Member.

Mr. WALSH: —an Amendment which would really meet the honourable engagement we have definitely entered into but did not widen it. Hon. Members are entitled to debate the matter in the hope of getting the Government to waive; the question of privilege or to offer
opposition to the Amendment, but the Amendment would not carry out what the House desires.

Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I beg to move, in lieu of the Lords Amendment disagreed with, at the end of Sub-section (1) to insert:
Provided always that nothing in the said Agreement shall either increase or diminish the obligation of the British Government to public servants in respect of pensions or compensation.
I think that wording will get over the difficulty which has been so well put by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh). The Amendment we have just rejected was obviously badly drafted. It gave us no indication as to who was covered, and a lot of people with no claims might come in. My Amendment is really declaratory of present obligations. It would not allow the claim of anyone who was not already entitled to receive compensation or a pension. I think there is greater need for Such an Amendment than I even realised when I opposed the disagreement with the principle of the Lords Amendment, because since then we have been told by the Colonial Secretary that all public servants in Ireland will be entitled to go, under the terms of the 1920 Act, because the conditions of their service have been changed owing to the Free State being brought into being and new conditions of service thereby being imposed. That will mean that unless you do something to allay the fears of the public servants they will all have to go within the next seven years and you will be confronted with this position, that this new Government, on top of all its other difficulties, will have to improvise from inexperienced elements an entirely new Civil Service. In the cause of Irish peace that is a disastrous policy.
We must, after taking away the just responsibility of the Southern Parliament, make it possible for these Civil Servants to go on doing their best for the country with the knowledge that if, at the end of their time, having loyally done their work, the authorities in the South do not pay the pensions, then that contract which they originally received from the hands of this Government will be carried out by
this Parliament. This proposal would in no way hamper the Government in making arrangements for the Free State Parliament to carry out the contractual obligations which these civil servants possess. That is the fair way in which compensations and pensions ought to be met. I do not believe that in accepting this Amendment we run any risk. It is unthinkable that Ireland can ever be economically so independent of this country that, even if she has no direct financial responsibility to this country, we shall not be able to enforce reasonable treatment of these civil servants. In view of the importance of keeping a contented and experienced body of civil servants to help the Provisional Government in the early years of its existence, we must accept some declaration of this kind to allay their very natural alarm.

Major HILLS: I beg to second the Amendment.
When I spoke on the original Lords Amendment I was told by the Secretary of State for the Colonies that all members of the Civil Service could retire, as soon as the Treaty was enforced, on the ground that they did not care to serve the Free State. That answered my first objection. But my second objection, as to the guarantee of this country in the case of default by the Free State, still remained. I feel oppressed by the weighty obligation that we bear towards these civil servants. They have had a very difficult time. Often they have risked their lives, and it is quite possible—I hope it will not happen—that the Free State may not pension or compensate them in so ample a way as the Treaty contemplates. The Amendment would not increase the charge-It is merely declaratory. Supposing the civil servants feel that their future is uncertain and that the arrangements which the Free State will make are neither generous nor reliable, they will all go in a body, and that would place the Free State in a very difficult position. We all agree that if the Free State does not act up to the limit of its obligations, we have to pay. I think we shall be able to extract it in some other way from the Free State. Should we have to pay, we had better say so frankly and openly, and tell these men that the obligation which we undertook under the Act of 1920 is still a binding obligation, and is not the least diminished by Article 10 of the Treaty. So, for all
reasons, from the point of view of fair treatment, from the point of view of our own financial obligations and the importance of getting over these difficulties, and, lastly, from the point of view of the Free State, I appeal to the House to support the Amendment.

Lord H. CECIL: I rise merely to invite the Government to make some reply. This alternative Amendment is in the nature of an assertion of the rights of civil servants, so that they shall not be invaded by what we are doing. On the merits, I gather that the Government are thoroughly in agreement with the proposal. They do not deny that civil servants have an absolute claim that their position shall not be worsened by this Bill. The only question is whether it is better to do it now or to rely upon a hearing of the claim at a later period. The Government have not, so far, told us what that later period is to be. They gave a pledge. We cannot say too clearly that the Government are absolutely pledged in honour, and so far as it is in their power they pledged their successors, that every civil servant, every public employé in Ireland, was to be no worse off by reason of the passing of this Bill. But the Government did not tell us how they are to implement that pledge if the occasion should arise. They do not say they are going to put it into the Constitution. That would be a very great concession which they might well make. They do not tell us that they will deal with it by a separate Bill. If they do not put it into the Constitution or deal with it in a separate Bill, it is clear that the civil servants will be in the position that the moment the Government go out of office they will have only this degree of security—the degree of obligation that the succeeding Government may feel for the undertaking into which this Government entered. Surely that is not treating public officials fairly.
Let us suppose that when the Constitution is set up in Ireland Mr. Collins and his colleagues are backed by a small majority. Let us suppose that then some controversy arises within two or three months, in which Mr. Collins is obliged to take an unpopular line. We will suppose that he is turned out of office and that the extreme Republican party come in. That party might be pledged to the revolutionary policy of making the
position in Ireland impossible. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this is not impossible. It is possible, and what would be the position in such circumstances of public officials under a Government, Republican in intention and in power I They would be exposed to all the public ignominy attaching to the operation of crime and outrage, with nobody but Mr. De Valera, perhaps, to take their part. I am sure the Government will agree that that would not be treating them fairly. They would come back to this House and say, "We cannot get on, and we want our rights under the Act of 1920." It may be that when they do so there will be a Labour Government in power. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Well, misfortunes never come singly, and if the extremist party succeed in Ireland, it is not impossible that the Labour party may succeed here. Supposing a Labour Government to exist, they will take a different view from that of the present Government. They have always believed in trusting the Irish people, and that sentiment, amiable as it is, may prove a very unsound foundation for the security of the civil servants. We are not treating people fairly if we take away from them legislative security, and do not give them another legislative security in its place. I earnestly press on the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment, or to give some unqualified and definite assurance that the Constitution will not come into force without some legislative security, keeping these people in the same position and giving them the same rights as they have to-day.

Sir F. BANBURY: I understood from the hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills) that the Colonial Secretary had assured him that in the event of these people retiring at once, then the ordinary obligations entered into by the Government would be carried out. I should like to draw his attention to the Eighth Schedule of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, paragraph 3, which contains the following:
The Civil Service Committee shall not give their permission under this Schedule to an officer who retires unless that officer shows to the satisfaction of the Committee

(a) That the duties which he is required to perform are neither the same as, nor analogous to the duties theretofore performed by him, or involve an unreasonable addition to those duties; or
1767
(b) That owing to changes in the conditions of his employment, his position has been materially altered."
It seems to me that provision in the 1920 Act overrides the undertaking given by the Colonial Secretary.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: It was only verbal.

Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. and gallant Member says it was only verbally given to him, but I am quite sure that the Colonial Secretary would carry out, or endeavour to carry out, any undertaking of that kind given either to my hon. and gallant Friend or anybody else in the House. I am afraid, however, he has overlooked this provision in the Act of 1920 and that it may not be in his power to carry out the undertaking, or it may not be in the power of another Government who have not given the pledge, to carry it out. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to give this point his attention.

Sir JOSEPH LARMOR: This Amendment provides against a real difficulty which will probably arise. We have heard that civil servants will be entitled to retire on their present pension rates, immediately, or very soon after the Bill is passed. It is quite clear also, that there is a considerable doubt as to the future prospects if they are to go on for a number of years under the new order of things. Speaking with some knowledge of the opinions of the people concerned, it seems to me that those civil servants who are anywhere near the conclusion of their service, will take advantage of the opportunity to retire and to ensure the allowances that now belong to them rather than to run a risk, for this small increase of those allowances which would accrue after a certain number of years of further service. If that eventuates and the senior and more experienced members of all Departments take advantage of their right to retire on the pensions that will now accrue to them, the new Government will be in a position of great difficulty in having lost their most experienced advisers from the permanent service of the country. That difficulty deserves very serious attention and should appeal to the Government which it is intended to set up in Southern Ireland.

Mr. J. JONES: The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) referred to the possibility of a Labour Government coming into power and the terrible eventuality that would arise therefrom as regards the civil servants. Evidently, although the Noble Lord is an intellectual genius and a great ornament to this House, he does not know much about the Labour party's record in the matter of the civil servants. No party stands by the rights of public servants more than the Labour party and no party is more prepared to assist them when they are in difficulties or dangers. I congratulate hon. Members who have so ably put their case to-day, and while I congratulate those hon. Members upon their sympathy with and support of the civil servants in Ireland, I wish I could congratulate them on the same amount of support for the workers of Ireland and of England too. May I remind them that there are more than civil servants running possible risks? In my opinion the risks will not arise in regard to the civil servants of their being discharged by the Government of Southern Ireland because of political differences with that Government. I have sufficient confidence in the men at the head of affairs in Ireland to believe that they will honourably carry out the bargains which they have made with the British Government and the Government of Northern Ireland. Very few civil servants will find themselves in a position such as is feared by hon. Members supporting the Amendment. At the same time the Labour party are prepared to give all the necessary guarantees that these men shall not find themselves placed in a false position or in a bad economic position as a consequence of any action that may be taken in the future.
May I remind hon. Members, however, that there are over 5,000 men who for over 12 months have been thrown out of good employment because of their religious and political opinions? Is there not going to be any attempt made to get 'them some compensation I Hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken on this Amendment are, in the main, supporters of the Government of Northern Ireland. Can they not bring some influence to bear upon that Government, with which they have such influence, to get something done for these men who have been thrown out of employment. Some of them were men earning good salaries—foreman
shipwrights, and foreman boiler-makers and first-class mechanics, and they have now been out of work for nearly two years, because their political and religious opinions were not the same as those of the friends of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. The work was provided for them, the firms are willing to take them back, but the others refused to allow them to go back because of their opinions. Are hon. Gentlemen prepared to help in this matter?

Sir J. BUTCHER: This would have been most interesting on the discussion on the Unemployment Insurance Bill, but I venture to suggest it is out of order on the present Amendment, which deals with the civil servants in Ireland.

Mr. JONES: I am talking about Irishmen, too.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member was making a retort to some of the arguments used by hon. Members who preceded him. Within limits, I think he was justified.

Mr. JONES: I thank you very much, Sir. I know I am generally out of order. I know I am a fool—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—and there are others who do not know it. Some people try to take advantage of me in that particular. There is the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon), who always keeps on at me. I am going to keep on hitting back at him. I am not asking for any favours, I am asking only for justice," and if the civil servants in the South of Ireland are to receive compensation because of a possible danger they may have to face, surely I am right in asking that the workmen of the North of Ireland who, in many cases, were in equally good positions, should have the same consideration, and that hon. Members who are moving this Amendment should use their influence with their Government in the North of Ireland to see that these people get justice dealt out to them in consequence of the sufferings they have undergone.

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): The whole House is agreed that the public servants mentioned in Articles 9 and 10 of the Agreement, and in the Lords Amendment with which the House is dealing, and
the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness), should receive the best possible treatment. All are agreed that the terms applicable to these public servants under the 1920 Act are fair terms, and that if those terms, at least, are carried out, no public servant in Ireland will have any just cause for complaint. I think the whole House is agreed upon that. It is a debt of honour to these public servants that must be carried out, and pledges have been repeatedly made at this box that it will be carried out. I cannot imagine how anybody can have any doubt as to the efficacy of those pledges during the term of this Government, however short or however long, or during the terms of office of Governments that may succeed" it. The way the pledges and Article 10 of the Treaty are carried out is that all these public servants are referred to in detail in the Order in Council which will be submitted to His Majesty in Council immediately upon the passing of this Bill into an Act. That is the operating instrument that carries out the wishes of Parliament as stated in the Bill now before the House. I cannot read to the House the draft of the Order in Council, which has yet to be submitted to His Majesty in Council, but which is referred to in this Bill itself—I thought the House was hardly aware of it—but I am saying in answer to questions which have been raised, that the terms of the 1920 Act are incorporated and carried out in this Order in Council.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I should like to ask whether the Order in Council will refer in any way to civil servants, to whose case I have drawn attention, who do not retire during the next seven years, but who loyally abide by the terms of their engagement and go on and try to help the Free State Government? Will it secure their pensions and compensation as well?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It will secure them in so far as the Act of 1920 is incorporated, and it is incorporated in the Order in Council. I think what the hon. and gallant Gentleman is dealing with principally is the point of the guarantee after a period of seven years. If he will permit me, I will deal with that later. I do not say that I can deal with it satisfactorily to him, but I shall
deal with it. The different civil servants and officials referred to in the Treaty have been dealt with, as I say, under the Order in Council. The Treaty itself guarantees that they will get treatment not less favorable than under the 1920 Act. That is carried forward into the Order in Council. In reference to one set of public servants in whom the House is particularly interested—the police—I think I ought to go into a little greater detail.

Mr. SPEAKER: A new point has just arisen. Do I understand from the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) that he suggests that his Amendment does something further than the Act of 1920? From his question just now it appears that that is so.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: No, sir. All that I asked was whether this would deal with civil servants who remain on after the seven years. Would it give them the same rights under the Superannuation Acts, which are incorporated in the Act of 1920? I should like an answer on that, in view of what I was told by the Colonial Secretary—in conversation only it is true—that if men stay on beyond seven years it is reasonable to leave them to have recourse to the Free State Government and to that Government only. I want to know which account is the true one.

Mr. SPEAKER: Then it is not plain that this Amendment now before the House goes in any degree beyond the Act of 1920.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not think the Amendment goes beyond the Act of 1920, if I may say so with respect; but the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds may possibly go beyond it. I was speaking with reference to the Royal Irish Constabulary. That Force is being disbanded, and the pensions resulting from that disbandment will remain charges on the Votes of this House, at any rate in great part and primarily, so that as far as they are concerned there is no question about the House having control. The members of the Royal Irish Constabulary no longer remain members of any force or part of the Government of Ireland. I might say here, in parenthesis, to meet
any argument that may be raised, that we are disbanding the force in Southern Ireland first, commencing to-day, and the force in Northern Ireland will be disbanded as soon as possible. Every member of that historic force will be disbanded and on pension on or before 31st May, To meet that case a Bill will be introduced into this House, on which the whole question can be raised.
I come now to what is, I think, the only outstanding point, the question of guarantee. As has been said again and again, the pledge of Ministers is considered by the Government to be sufficient guarantee that the pensions and all payments to these public servants in Ireland will be paid, if not by the Free State Government then by the Government that sits upon this Treasury Bench. Let me say that I know of no question that has been before the House in the present generation which has been supported so unanimously by the heads of all the parties in the House, and by the House generally. The suggestion that the undertaking given to-day would be cancelled by some succeeding Government is unreasonable. The Government cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds. I think it would be a reflection upon the Free State Government and the Provisional Government; and at a critical time like this I decline absolutely to accept the suggestion that they intend to do otherwise than carry out—in letter and spirit—the obligations they undertook in the Treaty with His Majesty's Government. In regard to a point that has been raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Larmor) it is to the vital interest of Ireland that these public servants should remain, to contribute to that country their experience, which cannot be replaced or substituted for by any fresh set of men. I am glad to say I know of no case where a public servant of the Crown has been disgraced or unfairly treated by the Provisional Government of Ireland, and I do not anticipate other than the fairest treatment from these Governments in future. These men are almost without exception Irishmen. It is a great delusion to suppose that the Irish Civil Service, Judiciary, and Police, are composed of Englishmen, Welshmen and Scotsmen. It was a common suggestion in earlier times, when
the amenities of debate were not so pleasant as they are to-day, that Ireland was overrun and oppressed by foreigners, namely, Englishmen, Welshmen, and Scotsmen. It never was true, and it is not true now.

Mr. MILLS: What about Canadians?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, I have been criticised on that score. The point is the overwhelming majority—I should say 99 per cent.—of the public servants referred to in the Treaty and the Amendment are Irishmen, who wish to remain in Ireland, and who are prepared to back the Government. The one branch of the service about which there was doubt—the Royal Irish Constabulary—are to be disbanded, and will be treated generously, and certainly better than under the Act of 1920. I submit a case has not been made out for this Amendment, and that, in the best interests of these public servants and the future government of Ireland, the matter should be left where it is.

3.0 P.M.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: The right hon. Gentleman has made two statements. In the first place he said we have no reason to suppose the Free State Government will go back on the obligations undertaken in the Treaty, and that to presume they would do so would be insulting. Of course it would. No one in his senses would make an insulting presumption of that kind. But they have undertaken no obligation of the kind referred to. They have undertaken an obligation towards civil servants who retire at the time of the change of government in Ireland, and in consequence of that change. They have undertaken no obligation in the Treaty as to what happens after that. In the second place the right hon. Gentleman has said that the word of Ministers recognising a debt of honour should be accepted. That has already been replied to, but there is a reply stronger than any yet made. It is this: We do not doubt the pledge of Ministers; but what are Ministers proposing to do by their word given in this House? They are proposing to substitute their word for an existing legal obligation. They are proposing to convert what is now a legal obligation into an obligation of honour. It is no reflection upon the honourableness of anybody to say, "I would rather have a legal contract, which
I possess at the present moment, than exchange it for a mere honourable undertaking." What business man, having a contract, surrenders it in exchange for a mere promise? Surely it does not consort with the dignity of this House that what is an existing legislative enactment should in some way vaguely vanish and that we should be left to rely entirely on an Executive pledge. That, as I understand it, is the position. At the present moment civil servants have certain-rights granted by this House under the Superannuation Act and under the Act of 1920. These obligations have not hitherto all been transferred to the Provisional Government. If His Majesty's Government had a contract with the Provisional Government entirely transferring to the Provisional Government their obligation towards civil servants under these Acts, we might rest content. But they have no such contract, and what they are proposing to do is to renounce, or half renounce, their own obligations to civil servants, without having any contract with the third party to take over those obligations. Surely that is a position with which this House cannot agree. It is within the-legal power of this House to vary the terms of any Act giving compensation; but until the House has done that, we cannot allow to Ministers the discretion of giving to civil servants only their word of honour, and interpreting according to their own ideas of justice what at present is a legal enactment of this House. I sincerely hope the House will vote for the Amendment.

Sir J. BUTCHER: The Noble Lord who has just spoken has said what is common sense and common honesty. The position is this. Government and Parliament are under statutory obligation to pay our civil servants, and I do not under stand the contention of the Chief Secretary that this obligation should be wiped out and civil servants should consent to a verbal promise. The Chief Secretary did not offer one syllable of argument against the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend, but what he did say was that we should leave matters as they are. How are they? The condition at present is that the Government recognise that these obligations should be made good, but, they say, "Wipe out, or at any rate ignore, these statutory obligations and leave it to our verbal statement in this House that we shall carry these obliga-
tions into effect." I think that is a most dangerous doctrine, and I am not at all sure how this verbal statement constitutionally operates. I am not at all sure whether it is binding upon a future Government. There have been instances, lamentable enough—I do not want to refer to them in any disagreeable sense—in which verbal pledges given by Ministers have not been honoured, even by themselves, and I want to know, as a constitutional matter, from the Government whether a verbal statement of that sort given by a Minister sitting as the representative of one party is necessarily binding at all upon his successor of another party or another Government.

I very much doubt it. Be that as it may, we do not want the rights of these old servants of the British Crown to rest on some constitutional ambiguity, on some verbal pledge given by a particular Minister which may or may not ever be honoured, and therefore I say that we should take the only course consistent with honour and common honesty and put into this Bill what my hon. and gallant Friend proposes, namely, that our statutory obligations to these men should not in any way be infringed by the Treaty.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 45; Noes, 165.

Division No. 71.]
AYES.
[3.10 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Larmor, Sir Joseph


Ammon, Charles George
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lindsay, William Arthur


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Glyn, Major Ralph
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Gretton, Colonel John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquey)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Poison, Sir Thomas A.


Butcher, Sir John George
Hills, Major John Waller
Townley, Maximilian G.


Cape, Thomas
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Wilson, Field-Marshal Sir Henry


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Jameson, John Gordon



Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Kennedy, Thomas
Lieut.-Colonel W. Guinness and Mr. Reid.


NOES.


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Hudson, R. M.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Cope, Major William
Hurd, Percy A.


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Jesson, C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Dawson, Sir Philip
Jodrell, Neville Paul


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Devlin, Joseph
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Doyle, N. Grattan
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk, George


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)


Barnston, Major Harry
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Kenyon, Barnet


Barrand, A. R.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Fell, Sir Arthur
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)


Beck, Sir Arthur Cecil
Finney, Samuel
Lloyd, George Butler


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Foot, Isaac
Lorden, John William


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Forestier-Walker, L.
Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)


Bigland, Alfred
Forrest, Walter
Lyle, C. E. Leonard


Birchall, J. Dearman
Frece, Sir Walter de
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Galbraith, Samuel
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Gardner, Ernest
McMicking, Major Gilbert


Borwick, Major G. O.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Gilbert, James Daniel
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
MacVeagh, Jeremiah


Brassey, H. L. C.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Mills, John Edmund


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Mitchell, Sir William Lane


Bruton, Sir James
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)


Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes
Haslam, Lewis
Myers, Thomas


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Naylor, Thomas Ellis


Carr, W. Theodore
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Neal, Arthur


Cautley, Henry Strother
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonal Frank
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Hogge, James Myles
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Chllcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.
Holmes, J. Stanley
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Hood, Sir Joseph
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hopkins, John W. W.
O'Connor, Thomas P.


Parker, James
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Pllditch, Sir Philip
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Seddon, J. A.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Shaw, Hon. Alex, (Kilmarnock)
Waring, Major Walter


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Pratt, John William
Shortt, Rt. Hon E. (N'castle-on-T.)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Purchase, H. G.
Simm, M. T.
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Raeburn, Sir William H.
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Rattan, Peter Wilson
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Winterton, Earl


Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Stewart, Gershom
Wise, Frederick


Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)
Sugden, W. H.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Richardson, Sir Alex, (Gravesend)
Sutherland, Sir William
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Robertson, John
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)



Rose, Frank H.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Tryon, Major George Clement
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy.


Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Lords Amendment:
After Sub-section (2) insert as a new Subsection:
Any Order in Council made under this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either of those Houses within twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such Order is laid before it praying that any such Order may be annulled, His Majesty may thereupon by Order in Council annul the same and the Order so annulled shall forthwith become void, but without prejudice to the validity of any proceedings which may in the meantime have been taken thereunder; and any Order in Council made under this Act shall, subject to the foregoing provisions of this Sub-section be of the same effect as if enacted in this Act, but may be revoked or amended by a subsequent Order in Council:
Provided that Orders in Council under this Act shall not be deemed to be statutory rules within the meaning of Section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Before passing this, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies. I was delighted to hear he was going to accept this Amendment. But he said in his original speech that, although he accepted it, we must not take it for granted that he preferred it very much, and, as I understood him, he said that, although Orders in Council were to be laid on the Table of the House, that procedure might be ineffective. I should like to know what that means. Does it mean that we are going to lay these Orders on the Table of the House for them to be objected to by a majority of the, Members and then find that, after all, they have come into force under what is known as
the Solemn Pact? It is very important we should know that before we pass this Amendment. May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there was a very solemn pact, the Treaty of Peace, signed at Versailles. In that we have a similar Clause that all Orders in Council should be laid on the Table of this House, and no question was raised at that time that those Orders in Council were not to act like any other Orders in Council and be able to be disallowed. I, therefore, respectfully ask for some further explanation, which I think is required.

Mr. CHURCHILL: There really will be no difference in these Orders in Council and any other Orders in Council. I have been trying to deal frankly with the House, and I have pointed out that such Orders will have to be laid to-morrow, with a view to the transference of the powers immediately. If the Bill passes, and after to-morrow no provision is made for Irish finance, unless there is this Order in Council, Irish finance will be thrown into inexplicable confusion.

Major HILLS: I think the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) should be reassured, anyhow. We have some control over these Orders in Council. Many of us put and suggested this same point before, that once we passed the Bill, the Government could do what they liked in respect to Orders in Council. But I did not rise for the purpose of discussing that, but to point out that my right hon. Friend has now accepted an Amendment which was moved and seconded on these benches. I seconded it, and the mover was the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). Perhaps the fact that he has joined the Government has changed their minds on this Amendment.
Anyhow, I am extremely glad, for I do not in the least understand that there was any reason for refusing the Amendment. We have little enough control as it is of what will occur in the new Free State. Control rests with this House, and this House alone, and the House should make that control a real control over these Orders in Council.

Colonel GRETTON: The Colonial Secretary has pointed out that these Orders in Council transfer certain powers. If the House is to have any real control over these matters which are subject to Orders in Council the proper procedure is to lay them in draft on the Table of the House for 21 days before they receive the Royal Assent. The only objection to that course is the question of time. In dealing with the vast questions contemplated under this Bill surely a matter of 21 days will not affect the issue one way or the other.

Mr. CHURCHILL: May I point out that there is no legal provision for this after to-morrow. After that Irish finance will be on a different basis altogether, and unless this Order in Council is published to-morrow morning the whole of our business in relation to these transferred powers will be thrown into confusion.

Colonel GRETTON: I recognise the difficulty in which the Government are placed. We do not know what is payable to the Irish State. I will not discuss these matters now, and I only wish to enter a caveat as to the effect of this method of procedure by Orders in Council. If the House is to have any real control they should be laid in draft on the Table.

Colonel NEWMAN: The Colonial Secretary a short time ago said that in a few days from now an Order in Council will appear which will define the various classes of civil servants that will come under this proposal. Supposing the civil servants of some of the local authorities are left out.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is making a second speech.

Lords Amendment:

After Subsection (3) insert a new Subsection:
In order to give effect to an agreement as to the date from which the month mentioned in Article 11 of the said Articles of Agreement is to run, it is hereby declared that this Act shall not for the- purposes of the said Article 11 be deemed to be the Act for the ratification of the said Articles of Agreement.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I propose, in substitution, to move, after Sub-section (3), to insert as a new Sub-section these words:
This Act shall not be deemed to be the Act of Parliament for the ratification of the said Articles of Agreement, as from the passing whereof the month mentioned in Article 11 of the said Articles is to run.
This policy is agreed upon by all the signatories to the Agreement completed yesterday, and the actual words have also been agreed upon by those parties. In addition, they are the words which have been framed by the Attorney-General to give complete and absolute assurance to Ulster that no legal ground can be urged that their month runs other than from the passing of the second Act.

Amendment made, in lieu of Lords Amendment: After Sub-section (3), insert as a new Sub-section:
This Act shall not be deemed to be the Act of Parliament for the ratification of the said Articles of Agreement, as from the passing whereof the month mentioned in Article 11 of the said Articles is to run."—[Mr. Churchill.]

Ordered, "That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill." [Mr. Churchill.]

Committee nominated of Mr. Churchill, Sir Laming Worthington-Evans, Sir Hamar Greenwood, Mr. Hogge, and Mr. Walsh.

Three to be the quorum.

To withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Churchill.]

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments, reported later, and agreed to.

To be communicated to the Lords.—[Mr. Churchill.]

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to insurance against unemployment, it is expedient—

(1) to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, in respect of the period between the seventh day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, and the end of the deficiency period, of an increased contribution towards unemployment benefit, and any other payment to be made out of the Unemployment Fund, not exceeding the amount determined by the Treasury to be approximately equivalent to the sum which would be produced by weekly contributions paid in respect of insured persons at the rate of threepence in the case of men and twopence in the case of women, boys, and girls; and
(2) to authorise the Treasury to make, for the purpose of discharging the liabilities of the unemployment fund in Great Britain under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 and 1921, as amended by the said Act, advances out of the Consolidated Fund, or the growing produce thereof, not exceeding at any time thirty million pounds, and to borrow money for such advances by the issue of such securities as the Treasury think proper, the principal of and interest on any such securities to be charged on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof."

Resolution read a Second time.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I desire to move two Amendments which yesterday the Chairman of Committees in his judgment—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The hon. Member is not allowed to comment upon the proceedings in Committee, but must move his Amendment.

Mr. MACLEAN: I beg to move, in paragraph (2), to leave out the words "and interest on" ["the principal of and interest on any such securities"].
Then I shall propose, at the end of the Resolution, to add the words
the interest on any such securities not to exceed the rate of four per cent.
The purpose of these Amendments is one which I have been putting before the House by questions and in other ways for the past year. I fail to see why, with the money market as it stands, the Government should continue paying higher rates
of interest than are necessary on money borrowed to carry out certain things which have to be done by the Government in the country. By a reduction of 1 per cent. on the amount the right hon. Gentleman requires, as suggested in the Amendment—because the Consolidated Fund Bill agrees to pay a sum not exceeding 4 per cent.—there will be a probable saving of £300,000. In these days, when the Government are constantly talking of economy, when Committees are reporting in favour of cuts in various Departments, when Members in all parts of the House—and I am glad to see the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) in his place, as I am certain as an economist he will back me up in the Amendment I am moving, because it proposes to save money for the community—when Members in all parts of the House are preaching economy, we shall, by accepting this Amendment, effect the result aimed at in every direction by those who are advocating economy and saving. The Government itself has in various methods, and the Government spokesmen have in various speeches pledged themselves to economise. I am suggesting a way in which they can do it.
I know it has been said in other matters in which a reduction of interest has been suggested that that would be a repudiation. Such an argument cannot be advanced against this Amendment, because in this case it is proposed to raise new money, consequently the rate of interest being paid on sums already borrowed by the Government will not be affected. A certain amount of money is required to be borrowed in order to carry out the purposes of this Fund. £30,000,000 has been mentioned as the figure. I imagine that not nearly that amount will be required, since part of it has already been borrowed and spent. Of course, that may reduce the sum which I suggest can be saved by the reduction of interest. Nevertheless, the main purpose I have in view is to have some Government Department commencing this policy of paying no more in interest than is absolutely necessary. The Bank rate has been reduced within the past few months by 2½ per cent., but we are still paying the same rate of interest as before the reduction of the Bank rate. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] Yes, we are, according to the statement
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who ought to know, and the Geddes Report, which has been submitted to this House by gentleman renowned for their business capabilities as well as their wonderful financial interests. I am prepared to take the word of those experts, as much as that of amateurs like the rest of us in this House who were not on that Committee. The Bank rate having been reduced, and also the rate of interest on deposits in banks, I cannot see any justification for the Government's offer to pay the same rate of interest on money that they want to borrow to-day as they were paying in 1919, and even in 1918, the last year of the War. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] My hon. Friends will have their opportunity when I have finished, and perhaps it will be better if, rather than merely interjecting "No," they produce some evidence. The rates of interest in other categories have been reduced, and I cannot see why this Government, pledged as it is to economy, should continue to pay the higher rate. The policy of the Government ought to be to secure for itself money at the lowest rate possible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad that my hon. Friends agree now, and perhaps we shall find them in the same Lobby with us when the Division comes. Precedent for similar action has already been established by this House in previous Parliaments, when it has been shown how the matter can be solved. The Government itself, with all the resources of the country behind it as security, is surely in a position to borrow money more cheaply than any other body in this country, either municipal or business. The rates of interest on Government securities have generally been lower than upon industrial securities, but the rate of interest to-day, even in the case of those securities which have not been converted, is already too high in view of the reduction in the price of money and in the cost of living. It may be utterly a heresy, so far as it affects the financiers of this House, but I fail to see why the taxpayers of this country should be invited to pay a higher rate of interest than is absolutely necessary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am prepared, if it be found impossible to get money at the Tate of interest that I suggest, to take it at whatever rate can be got.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): That is not the Amendment.

Mr. MACLEAN: I know it is not the Amendment, but I am putting in a saving Clause. I am making that statement to the House because I do not wish anything to interfere with the payment of unemployment benefit. It is purely an expedient, not a matter of principle. I do believe that the money can be obtained for this lower rate of interest. I have already pointed out to the House that the French Minister of Finance has announced that he is only going to pay 3½ per cent. upon any new issues of National Defence Bonds and Treasury Bills issued by the French Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the price of issue?"] I am stating the rate of interest. The price at which they are going to be issued has not been announced. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] The Minister has simply stated to the general public and the investing public that he is not going to pay more than 3½ per cent. Hon. Members seem to think it a matter for rejoicing that we should go on paying high rates of interest. Men who in this House at other times boast about their business acumen and pose as great financiers, telling the House that it ought to economise and giving the Government the benefit of their business qualities and experience, now sneer and scoff at the idea of a lower rate of interest upon moneys that are to be borrowed by the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I may be wrong, but that, at least, is how it appears to me. I am approaching this subject from the point of view of one who moves among the people, and who finds a great deal of criticism directed against the Government for continuing the payment of high rates of interest, and it is as one of the people, and as a representative of the public that I am putting this Amendment forward and carrying on the campaign. I am doing that interest upon money that is borrowed to carry on Government schemes should be at a lower rate than is being paid at present. That is surely a perfectly straight and clear issue. [Interruption.] If you want money you know where you can get it.

Sir F. HALL: You cannot get it at 4 per cent.

Mr. MACLEAN: It is for the Government to say they cannot get it. If I were in the Chancellor's shoes, I would get it for a great deal less. [An HON. MEMBER: "Would the Co-operative Societies lend it at 4 per cent.?"] Cooperative Societies pay even less than 5 per cent., and many are paying less upon the money invested in their shares. There are in the Savings Banks several hundreds of millions belonging to the working classes upon which only 2½ per cent is being paid.

Sir F. HALL: Why keep it there?

Mr. MACLEAN: Why should you offer 5 per cent. to the financiers when you are only allowing the working man 2½ per cent.? You are only paying 2½ per cent. to the working men who invest their savings. There are millions which can be obtained by the Government if through the Post Office they would offer a higher rate of interest. If they would offer 4 per cent. on money deposited in the Post Office Savings Bank, they would get all the money required to carry on these schemes. There is no use in saying you cannot get money unless you pay more than 4 per cent. The thing is absurd and hon. Members know it. They represent the financial classes. They are here to get the highest rate of interest they can for the people they represent and move amongst. Then surely I am equally interested in saying that the people who are to bear the burden of paying the interest are not going to be taxed the heaviest amount possible when it is possible to get money at a lower rate of interest.

Mr. MILLS: I beg to second the Amendment.
Hon. Members will recollect the sacrifice made by the taxpayers to preserve the financial stability of the banks in the first hours when the War broke out. If an estimate was made of the exact amount of money it cost the British taxpayer to preserve and carry on the moratorium, running into hundreds of millions, I should have thought those great bankers, who have emerged not only unimpaired but with greater resources and greater profits than any other section of the community, might very well have saved the necessity of the Amendment by saying to the Government that on an issue such as this, for a cause such as
this, they would lend the money at such a rate of money as would merely repay working costs. With conditions so desperate as they are to-day, it will mean millions of pounds to those who only open their doors at the bidding of so much per cent.
I am certain that if we could get a little of that common patriotism which is so often spoken of and demanded of other sections of the community, it would not be necessary to move such an Amendment as this. The Government should have regard to the money deposited by the common people in the Post Office. We may be wrong in our views and we do not claim to be right, but we do ask of the great financiers who sit in the House and jeer, that, for the benefit of the layman and of the man who has come from the mines, the lathe and the dock, and does not understand all the intricacies of finance, they shall, in order to disarm suspicion, point out what crude financiers we are and how it is impossible that money can be got as we have suggested. That might save time. We do not get up for the sake of wasting time, and we do not repeat ourselves. Here is a unique opportunity to convince the laymen on this side of the House that our proposition is fundamentally unsound and is based on an utter misconception of the working of the financial system. During the Debate on Wednesday night the hon. Member who moved this Amendment "drew" the Minister of Labour on one or two of the proposals that are to eventuate in the near future. If necessary I could quote resolutions that have come to me within the last 48 hours as a result of that Debate. Under the unemployment benefit scheme it is proposed automatically to disqualify 90,000 men who have been receiving benefit.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It will not be in order to develop that argument on this Amendment, which deals only with interest.

Mr. MILLS: That being so, I shall have to raise the matter in the form of a question to the Minister. I content myself now with seconding the Amendment.

Dr. MACNAMARA: The excursion of the Mover of the Amendment into the realms of finance leaves a little to be desired in the way of practicability. He used the expression "If I were in the shoes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer."
My imagination fails to conceive what would happen after that. As the guardian of this Fund, I cannot resist the inclination to thank my hon. Friend for his anxiety on behalf of the Fund. I do not think he realises what he is doing by this proposal. Perhaps I had better read the last paragraph of the Financial Resolution:
and to borrow money for such advances by the issue of such securities as the Treasury think proper, the principal of, and interest on, any such securities to be charged on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof.
The two Amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) would make it read this way:
the principal of, and interest on, any such securities to be charged on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof, the interest on any such security not to exceed the rate of four per cent.
That is how the Resolution would be reconstructed. My hon. Friend wishes to see to it that I should not have to pay more than 4 per cent. for money which I borrow from the Treasury and that might be all right as far as it goes. It would save me about one per cent. on what I have now to pay in respect of borrowed money. But my hon. Friend knows, that by his Amendments he is doing much more than that. His main purpose I have indicated, but in order to carry it out, the Treasury must go into the market for this purpose and borrow the money at 4 per cent. and thereafter, I should only repay the Treasury at the same rate for the money which I want. If the Treasury went into the market for the purpose of raising this particular Fund, they would not get any money at all. My hon. Friend dwelt upon the necessity for economies, but he will see that his economy, in this instance, would be at the expense of the people who are going to receive benefit. Observe what the Actuary's Report says:
The rate at which the debt will be repaid must, of course, depend upon the course of unemployment and the conditions governing receipt of benefit, but so far as can be seen at present, it is unlikely that the Fund will become solvent until several years after July, 1923.
Does anybody suppose the Treasury or anybody else will go into the market for what must be a long loan on such terms? The actuary's words are, "unlikely to
become solvent until several years after July, 1923." Here is a reason of practicability which I must consider in my fiduciary capacity. It is a long loan, and how can it be advanced at 4 per cent.? I do not suppose my hon. Friend really contemplated that. His main purpose is that I shall not pay back to the Treasury at more than 4 per cent., but that is not the only result of the Amendment. The Amendment is far more sweeping than that, because it would mean in effect that the Treasury should go into the market for a money loan which would not be repaid in any case until several years after July, 1923. As an hon. Member said, they could not get sixpence.

Mr. MACLEAN: Not from that hon. Member!

Dr. MACNAMARA: I think my hon. Friend was a little uneasy upon that point, because he made a statement to the effect that if it could not be done or was impracticable, he did not wish to be charged with robbing people of their benefit. As to the other point about the repayment to the Treasury at 4 per cent., even if that were feasible, look where we should be. Every social service which requires a loan to carry on its operations could come at once and say, "We also want 4 per cent." Does the hon. Member carry in mind the charge involved against the Treasury by a difference of 1 per cent.? The figure of £300,000 has been mentioned. That may be right—I will accept the figure for the purpose of this argument. Take only the narrower point as to the repayment of the loan, and leave out the broader point, that the proposal is outside the region of practicability altogether. What charge would there be on the Treasury? Why, all the other dual services, such as the Ministry of Health, would all demand the same terms and, from the point of view of business, it would be quite impossible. I hope, for he sake of my hon. Friend's future success in the shoes which he suggested he might some day occupy, he will not press this to a Division.

Sir F. BANBURY: An hon. Member opposite said he would like a little explanation about this and I can give him an explanation in the course of two or three minutes. With regard to the Post Office Savings Bank, he does not seem to be aware that the whole of that money
is already in possession of the Government, except for some little floating balance kept to pay out money on demand. He does not understand the difference between the taking of money repayable on demand and the taking of money for a long period. Supposing you were to raise the interest of the Post Office Savings Bank from 2½ per cent. to 3½ per cent. and that that attracted a large amount of money. What would happen if, owing to some strike or lock-out or anything else it was necessary for all the people to withdraw their money? They would have the power to withdraw it at two or three days' notice, and where would the Bank get the money? The Yorkshire Penny Bank is an instance of it. Some 10 or 12 years ago they gave some 2½ per cent. or 3 per cent. on deposits, repayable on demand, and they invested their money in very first-class securities which gave them ½ per cent. more. But these were long securities, and for a variety of causes there had been a fall in the value of long securities, and they could not realise when the demand came, and they had to go to the other banks to help them out of their difficulty, and the bank has practically closed. It was absolutely well conducted, but in the wrong way, on the belief that you can take money repayable on demand and realise it again on a long security, and that is what you cannot do. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) has understood it, but if not and he applies to me some day in the Lobby I shall be glad to explain it.

Amendment negatived.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

Irish Free State (Agreement) Bill,—That they do not insist upon their Amendments with which the Commons have disagreed and agree with the Amendment which the Commons have proposed in lieu of one of their Amendments.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (NO. 2) BILL.

Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [30th March] "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: I want to ask whether there is any alteration in the situation in reference to this Bill as it was left last night.

4.0 P.M.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): With your permission, Sir, and with the consent of the House, as I have already spoken, I should like to explain the position. The House will recollect that, so far as I am personally concerned, I have inherited this Bill from the Ministry of Health. It is only quite recently that questions dealing with the Parliamentary franchise and registration came to the Home Office. Questions dealing with what is contained in this Bill have been the subject of discussion for the last few years with the Ministry of Health. Last night I was not quite sure how far my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health had pledged the Government in such a way that I was bound by any pledge he gave. Therefore I said nothing, in order that I might to-day put the House in full possession of the facts. It appears that the provisions of Clause 2 were the subject of discussion when the Bill of 1920 was in Committee, and at that time the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill discussed three proposals which were made. My right hon. Friend announced, however, that it was the intention of the Government to deal with this subject in a later Bill, but gave no pledge as to how it would be dealt with. Last night I was somewhat severely attacked for having fallen away from my Liberal principles, and something was said about some oblique motive being behind this proposal.
There was a conference held on the 29th June, 1921, at which there were present, in addition to a number of provincial registration agents, a representative of the central offices of each of the Conservative, the Coalition Liberal, the Labour and the Independent Liberal parties. The three proposals discussed were whether there should be a free
quota, whether there should be an increase of a ½d. in the statutory limit of expenses, and whether the proposal in this Bill should be adopted. After discussion, in which they were all agreed that something should be done, they were equally unanimously agreed, including Labour, that this provision should be put forward. Therefore the strong things said about my departure from my principles last night would apply with equal vigour to the representatives of the Independent Liberals and the Labour party. When this Bill was first put before me and I read Clause 2, I said: "What is this?" I was told: "That is the result of a conference." It was quite evident last night, so far as I could judge from the speeches of those who took part in the Debate, that no one was in favour of this proposal. No one spoke in favour of it. Everyone spoke against it. I conclude, therefore, that the House would rather this Clause was not in the Bill. I am satisfied that I am bound by no pledge, and I am quite prepared, if the House will give the Bill a Second Reading now, to agree to propose in Committee the omission of this Clause. I would ask the House to give it a Second Reading to-day, because the gist of this Bill is Clause 1. That is the really substantial and important part of it, and unless we get that at once it will be too late for the provisions to take effect in due time for the next registration.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: I was speaking last night when the Debate was interrupted at 11 o'clock.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): Then I am afraid the hon. Member has exhausted his right.

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. I was speaking when I was interrupted, and I took it that I should be the first called upon to continue the Debate. Just as 11 o'clock came I was asking the Home Secretary a question relating to Clause 3—

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went, and, having returned,

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to

Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, 1922.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (NO. 2) BILL.

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. MACLEAN: I was taking exception last night, and earlier to-day, to the reference to the Local Government Act of 1888—

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: On a point of Order. I should like to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to the effect of the three last lines of the Resolution which we passed at the beginning of the sitting:
That Mr. Speaker do not adjourn the House under Standing Order No. 3 until he shall have reported the Royal Assent to the Irish Free State (Agreement) Bill.
Is not the effect of that to bring our proceedings to a close?

Mr. SPEAKER: No. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at Standing Order No. 3, he will see that it requires Mr. Speaker to adjourn the House, without Question put, after the Orders of the Day have been disposed of.

Mr. MACLEAN: This Bill applies to the whole country, with the exception of the Irish Free State, and the Bill itself sets out its applicability to the North of Ireland. A rather peculiar situation arises under Clause 3. We are referred to the Local Government Act of 1888, which does not apply to any other part of the country except England and Wales. Scotland is left out. The North of Ireland would have been left out here, but for the fact that the Home Secretary has included in a specific sentence in the Bill that this shall apply to the North of Ireland. What has poor Scotland done?

Mr. SHORTT: We are bound to do this in the case of England and Wales, and we could not give financial relief unless this correction is made. There is no intention to leave Scotland out of this financial arrangement. This is quite a Committee point, and I will undertake to see to it during that stage.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am sure that any matter of this kind affecting Scotland
would have been debated fully if it had been understood. I hope that during the Committee stage the Home Secretary will put this matter right. I see that Scotland is referred to in one of the Schedules, and I hope that Scotland is going to be put in. We want an Amendment that will extend the scope of this Measure and give greater benefits to the people of Scotland. I have no objection to any Measure that is going to do good to Scotland, although as a Scotsman I believe that by putting down Amendments to Clauses which affect Scotland as well as other parts of the country, we are thus conferring advantages upon those other parts. I hope the Home Secretary will remedy what appears to mo to be a bad piece of draftsmanship, because they have left out the best part of the community. I see that the Secretary for Scotland is now present. I notice he is studying the Bill, and I hope he will see to it that when this Bill comes before the Committee the anomalies that affect Scotland will be excised, and that anything which is likely to give Scotland similar advantages to other parts of the country will be included in the Bill.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: The Home Secretary is so eminently reasonable in the eon duct of this Bill that I hope he will relieve me and my hon. Friend the Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin) from the effort that we shall have to make, if the Bill is kept in its present form, to prevent it passing into law. I do not want to raise any obstruction to this Bill, and no one will be more relieved than myself if my right hon. Friend adopts the same wise tactics with regard to another Clause as he has done with regard to Clause 2. I gathered from the somewhat half-hearted manner in which the right hon. Gentleman presented the Bill that it has something of the loneliness of the baby left on the doorstep. It came from the Ministry of Health. What the Ministry of Health has to do with the question of registration, the subdivision of county areas, and other things, passes my imagination, but I have long given up any attempt to penetrate the mysteries of Departmental decrees. Has my right hon. Friend seriously considered the effect of Clause 3? My hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) has called attention to the fact that Scotland is not included. My com-
plaint is of a quite opposite character. Why is Ireland included? Has Ireland or any part of Ireland asked for this Bill? Have the representatives of Northern Ireland asked for it, or, at least, for Clause 3? Why should my right hon. Friend persevere? As a matter of fact, this Bill has not only created a good deal of attention, but it has created a good deal of apprehension in the North of Ireland.
Everybody knows that elections in that part of the world are contested with the greatest keenness. I believe that the minimum proportion of electors to go to any election, either local or imperial, is 98 per cent., and I believe that on certain occasions, when party feeling ran high and party funds were particularly plenty, they even voted 101 per cent. I give that as a sign of the great keenness with which these elections are fought. Of course, there is one part of the North of Ireland in which elections are more keenly fought than in others. I refer to the two counties, Tyrone and Fermanagh, which unfortunately are the obstacle to that good understanding which one hopes will be reached between the North and the South. Under a previous Act of Parliament there was in these two constituencies, where every seat, even for an urban council, is contested as vehemently and energetically by both sides as seats for the Imperial Parliament, a redistribution of area which I can only describe as gerrymandering. The same thing occurred in Belfast. My hon. Friend, who has represented the Falls Division of Belfast for a considerable time, found himself, under a recent redistribution Act, saddled with two Orange wards. Everybody will recognise the unfairness of that. It would really have as its result the disfranchisement of that constituency and of a third of the population of Belfast. With these experiences before us, we cannot be blamed if we look with a great deal of suspicion on any further method of producing and facilitating this form of gerrymandering. Has my right hon. Friend read and studied the effects of Clause 3? When under that Clause representation is made that it is desirable the boundary of any electoral division of a county or counties should be altered, there can be no objection to a public inquiry, but although a public inquiry may take place, the Secretary of State still remains omnipotent
and has the power to accept or reject the result of the inquiry. Apply that to a county like Tyrone where, in some parts, there is a clear Nationalist majority, in other parts a Unionist majority, and where in still other parts by a little manipulation the Unionist minority may be converted into a Unionist majority. These are serious matters for Ireland and this is a provision which those who represent the minority in the North of Ireland are bound to resist. I know that the time of the Government is very much occupied just now, and I do not want too much of it to be taken up by this Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman agrees to exclude, as far as Ireland is concerned, this particular provision, I think I can say his Bill will get through without opposition. Although the question of increasing expense is important, the question to which I have drawn special attention is still more vital to us.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I hope the Home Secretary will take an opportunity of considering one particular point. Under the provisions of the last Act dealing with the franchise all the elections were fixed to take place on one day, and the result was a great congestion. It was almost impossible to get the polling boxes and ballot boxes which were necessary, and in some cases the ballot was actually defeated by what took place. It is a great mistake to have all the elections on one day, because the people of this country have always recognised that the Government is carried on by a Government and by an Opposition, and if the elections were all on on one day they cannot tell how things are going at the polls. There is a tendency, when the elections are spread over a number of days, and when it is noticed that the great majority are voting on one side, for the electors to vote for the losing side in the remaining elections, so as to ensure that there shall be a proper Opposition and not the miserable apology for one which we now have, and which is more vocal than intelligent. I think the electorate ought to have an opportunity of seeing how things are going, and consequently all the elections ought not to be fixed for one day. Besides, spreading the period over a number of days would be of great assistance, not only in the matter of providing the necessary machinery for
the elections, but also in the matter of expense.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: I should like, before this Bill is read a Second time, to enter my protest against the undertaking which the Home Secretary has given to drop the provisions of Clause 2 at the bidding of the Labour party. That is what it really comes to. I was on the Committee on the last Representation of the People Bill, when the late Minister of Health gave us to understand that the provisions at the present time embodied in Clause 2 would be inserted before the next Dissolution. According to my information, the wish of all parties in the North of England is in favour of the concession to candidates which is now embodied in Clause 2. The Home Secretary, in explaining why he is going to give way on that point, only assigned two reasons for the surrender. The first was that all the speeches made yesterday on the Bill were hostile to Clause 2; but who made those speeches? Not one was made by a supporter of the Government. The only people who protested against Clause 2 were opponents of the Government, and it is simply absurd, merely because a protest has been made by the Opposition, to give way to them at once. Weakness never pays. The second reason assigned by the Home Secretary was that doubt had been thrown upon his Liberal principles. Who cares about his Liberal principles? The true issue which faces the Home Secretary and the House is whether or not this Clause is wise and expedient; it is not whether it is in accord with the maxims, clichés, and shibboleths that have marked the Liberal party for the last generation. I suggest that the Government, before withdrawing a provision which has been made in pursuance of wishes expressed by the representatives of the Coalition Liberal party and of the Conservative party should elicit their opinions as well as those of the Opposition.

Mr. J. JONES: You will be the next one to get the sack!

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: The provisions concerning the expenditure of candidates for election to Parliament were drawn up in the days of the penny post, and the effect of making a certain sum applicable to election expenses was that a certain proportion of the sum allowed should be spent in postage—which, of course, goes
to the State—and that was regarded by the Government of the day as right and proper. Since that time the cost of postage has materially increased, with the result that the amount to be spent on actual electioneering is reduced by something like £80 to £100, although the electorate has increased with the increase in population, while the cost of printing, paper, and many other items has also increased. It follows, therefore, that if you want to give candidates in Parliamentary elections the same chances of propaganda as they had when the Representation of the People Act, laying down this limit of expenditure was passed, you must increase the proportion of the sum allowed which is available for propaganda, instead of allowing it to be cut down through an increase in the cost of postage. It is perfectly democratic, and has been approved, as the Home Secretary at one time admitted, by representatives of all parties, and no reason has been brought forward by him for this surrender to the clamour of members of the Labour party. The idea that Clause 2 is playing into the hands of rich men is also absurd. Everyone spends more or less the same at election times. The period when rich people like Labour Members, who have the support of co-operative societies and trade unions, take advantage of their greater wealth is outside election times. We know that all the year round the moneys of co-operative societies and trade unions are being squandered upon political propaganda in support of members of the Labour party. That is the time when the people with these great funds behind them have the advantage. It is not at election time. That was, no doubt, the view of the delegates of the four parties who met together and approved of Clause 2 when it was drawn. Before the Home Secretary takes the step of definitely abandoning a Clause which has been brought in at the wish of representatives of all parties, he ought to take the opinion, not merely of the enemies of the Government, but also of its friends.

Mr. SHORTT: May I say, in answer to the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. O'Connor), that not one of the things that he talked about could possibly happen under the Clause. The law at present is that if a report is made an inquiry must be held, no matter if everyone is in favour, and if it decides that
a change should be made a change is made. The Clause does not alter that in any way. What it says is that where it is perfectly clear that all parties have agreed we need not be put to the expense of an inquiry. If the hon. Member had read the proviso he would have seen that if 100 electors in any division where a proposal is made object to it the inquiry must be held. The sole change in the law is no change in the power to make alterations, no change in the power of people to ask for an alteration, but where it is clear that there is no opposition and all parties are agreed, they need not be put to unnecessary expense.

Colonel Sir C. YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he is going to do to relieve England, Scotland and Wales from the terrible trouble of two registrations in a year and put them on the same footing as Ireland, which has only one?

Mr. SHORTT: That cannot be dealt with in this Bill.

Mr. DEVLIN: What I should really like to have explained to me is why Ireland is put into this Bill at all. From whom did the demand come? There is not a single Member from North-East Ulster here but myself. I bear alone the burden of that responsibility.

Mr. SHORTT: I do not think this Clause applies to Ireland at all. I thought my hon. Friends were suggesting that the same things would happen in this country which happened in their country.

Mr. DEVLIN: Why is there inserted in this Measure a Clause stating that this shall apply to Northern Ireland? What right has this Parliament, which has transferred all Parliamentary constitutional powers to North-East Ulster, to include in a purely British Measure, which does not apply to Scotland, a Clause applying the Measure to Ireland? I do not believe anyone on that bench knows anything about the Bill.

Mr. SHORTT: I really do not know what the hon. Member means. This Clause 3 applies to no part of Ireland. It only deals with representations which are made under Section 54 of the Local Government Act, 1888, and you cannot make those representations with regard
to Ireland because the Act of 1888 does not apply to Ireland.

Mr. DEVLIN: If it does not apply to Ireland, why is a Clause put in that it applies to Northern Ireland?

Mr. SHORTT: It is not, if the hon. Member will read the Bill.

Mr. DEVLIN: A half of page four is devoted to a Schedule dealing with Northern Ireland.

Mr. SHORTT: That is under Clause 1.

Mr. DEVLIN: I am unfortunate in this position, that I have not the faculty of dealing with great clarity or interpreting the mystifications and archaic language of a Parliamentary Bill. I am in good company in that regard, because I remember that the present Lord Chief Justice found it almost impossible to make clear certain provisions of the Irish Free State (Agreement) Bill. As far as I can see there has been a certain amount of chaos on the Ministerial Bench as to what this Bill means.

Mr. SHORTT: There is no chaos here.

Mr. DEVLIN: There has been a Cabinet Council on the Front Bench, without most of the Cabinet, in order to ascertain what this Bill really means. The right hon. Gentleman has said that this was handed over to him as a heritage from the Ministry of Health. What in the name of Heaven have electoral areas to do with health? Our reading of this Clause is clearly that this will enable the Northern Parliament to gerrymander and reconstruct the wards and sections of county administration areas and to repeat what they did when they evicted me—

Mr. SHORTT: It does not apply to Northern Ireland at all. I ask my hon.
Friend to accept that assurance. Clause 1 applies to Northern Ireland. Clause 2 would do so if not dropped, but Clause 3 does not apply to any part of Ireland.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman in Committee add a Clause explaining that?

Mr. SHORTT: It is already in an Act of Parliament. The Act of 1888 does not apply to Ireland.

Mr. DEVLIN: I will accept that assurance. I am certain that if my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had not raised the point the Northern Parliament would have taken advantage of this to gerrymander the counties.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: The Home Secretary has just said, regarding Clause 2, that it would apply to Ireland unless dropped. That seems to me inconsistent with what he said before.

Mr. SHORTT: What I said was that I would accept an Amendment to omit the Clause.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKEE adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at Ten Minutes before Five o'Clock, till Monday next (3rd April).